-nJP^*** 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2011  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/twodiscoursesonpOOworc 


fiyc^^ 


TWO 

DISCOURSES, 


^'^TV^^ 


ON  THE 

t^EUPETUlTY  AND  PROVISION 
GOD'S  GRACIOUS  COVENANT 

WITH 

ABRAHAM  AND  HIS  SEED. 


Hr  SAMUEL  WORCESTER,  A.  M. 

PASTOR  OF  THE  TABERNACLE  CHURCH  IN  SAIEM. 


SECOND  EDITION,  RE\1SED. 

To  which  are  annexed, 

LETTERS  TO  THE  REV.  THOMAS  BALDIVLV,  D.D. 

on  his  Book,  entitled 

THE  BAPTISM  OF  BELIEVERS  ONLY,  &c. 


O  ye  seed  of  Israel  his  servant,  ye  children  of  Jacob  his  chosea 
ones  ;  be  ye  mindful  always  of  his  Covenant,  the  word  which 
he  commanded  to  a  thousand  generations  ;  even  of  the  Covenant 
which  he  made  with  Abraham,  and  of  his  oath  unto  Isaac  ;  and 
hath  confirmed  the  same  unto  Jacob  for  r.  law,  and  to  Israel 
for  an  everlastint^  Covenant.  David. 

That  the  Gentiles  should  be  fellow  heirs,  and  cf  the  same  body, 
and  partakers  of  his  promise  in  Christ  by  the  Gospel.       Paul. 

So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations.  IsjMah. 


SALEM: 

PRINTED  BY  HAVEN  POOL,  FOR  THE  AUTHOR. 

1807. 


DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  TO  VVfT  : 

^^^•jre  E  IT  REMEMBERED,  that  on  the  twenty  ninth  day 
uTi'^vs^-l*^  of  January,  in  the  thirty  first  year  of  the  Independence 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  Samuel  Worcester,  of  the 
said  District,  has  deposited  in  this  Office  the  Title  of  a  Book,  the 
Right  whereof  he  claims  as  Author,  in  the  words  following,  to  wit : 

"  Two  Discourses,  on  the  perpetuity  and  provision  of  God's 
gracious  Covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed.  By  Samuel 
Worcester,  A.  M.  Pastor  of  the  Tabernacle  Church  in  Salem. 
Second  edition,  revised.  To  which  are  annexed,  Letters  to  the 
Rev.  Thomas  Baldwin,  D.  D.  on  his  Book,  entitled  The  Baptism 
of  Believers  only,  Sec. 

"  O  ye  seed  of  Israel  his  servant,  ye  children  of  Jacob  his  cho- 
sen ones  ;  be  ye  mindful  always  of  his  covenant,  the  Avord  which 
he  commanded  to  a  thousand  generations  ;  even  of  the  covenant 
•which  he  made  with  Abraham,  and  of  his  oath  unto  Isaac,  and 
hath  confirmed  the  same  unto  Jacob  for  a  law,  and  to  Israel  for 
an  everlasting  covenant. — David.  That  the  Gentiles  should  be 
fellow  heirs,  and  of  the  same  body,  and  partakers  of  his  promise 
in  Christ  by  the  Gospel. — Paul.  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  na- 
tions.— Isaiah." 

In  conformity  to  the  Actof  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  in- 
titled,  ''An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing 
the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Pro- 
prietors of  sucli  Copies,  during  the  Times  therein  mentioned  ;" 
and  also  to  an  Act  intitled,  "An  Act  supplementary  to  an  Act,  in- 
titled,  An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing 
the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and  Pro- 
prietors of  such  Copies  during  the  times  therein  mentioned ; 
and  extending  the  Benefits  tliereof  to  the  Arts  of  Designing,  En- 
graving and  Etching  Historical  and  other  Prints." 

WILLIAM  S.  SHAW,]  %ll*5i„?,^;f' 


At  a  meeting  of  the  Tabernacle  Church  in  Salem,  August  19, 
1805,  Voted,  unanimously,  to  request  our  Rev.  Pastor  to  furnish 
a  copy  of  his  Discourses,  lately  delivered  in  the  Tabernacle,  on 
the  Perpetuity  and  Provision  of  God's  gracious  Covenant  with 
Abraham  and  his  Seed,  for  publication  from  tlie  press. 
Extract  from  the  Records. 

Attest,    JOHN  PUNCHARD,  Church  Clerk. 
Salemy  Aug.  20,  1805, 


TO  THE 
TABERNACLE  CHURCH  AN.D  SOCIETY 

IN  SALEM, 

THESE   DISCOURSES, 

<jJ^  THE  PERPETUITY  AjYD  PROVISIOA'OF  GOTTs 

GRACIO  US  CO  VEKANT  WITH  ABRAHAM 

AND  HIS  SEED, 

TIRST  COMPOSED  WITH  A  VIEW  TO  THEIR  BENEFIT, 

AND  NOW  MADE  PUBLIC  IN  COMPLIANCE 

WITH   THEIR   REQUEST,    ARE, 

WITH  THE  BEST  WISHES, 

HUMBLY  INSCRIBED, 

BY  THEIR  AFFECTIONATE, 

A.YD  DEVOTED  PASTOR, 

A.¥D  SERVA.YTFOR  JESUS'  SAKE, 

THE  AUTHOR, 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


THE  numerous  calls  for  these  Discourses,  since  the  whale, 
of  the  first  edition,  consisting  of  a  thousand  copies,  was  taken  off, 
determined  the  Author,  more  than  six  months  ago,  to  revise  them 
fbr  a  second  impression.  But  as  itwasunderstood,  that  they  were 
to  be  noticed,  in  the  way  of  answct  from  the  press,  it  was  deem- 
ed expedient  to  delay  the  republication,  yntjl  an  answer  should 
appear.  Some  Strictures  upon  them  have  just  come  before  the 
public,  and  are  of  a  nature  to  require  some  notice*. 


SERMON  I. 


GALATIANS  III.  29. 

4nd  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed^  and 
heirs  accordirig  to  the  promise. 

ilT  has  ever  pleased  the  sovereign  God  to  treat  witl^ 
mankind  in  the  way  of  covenant.  In  this  way  he  treated 
with  Adam  in  his  primeval  state.  He  proposed  a  cove- 
nant, agreeably  to  which,  in  case  of  fidelity  on  Adam's 
part,  he  would  confirm  Adam  in  a  state  of  holiness,  and 
confer  upon  him  and  his  posterity  the  blessings  of  a  glo- 
rious immortality.  In  this  v.-ay  he  treated  with  Noah, 
after  the  destruction  of  the  world  by  the  general  deluge. 
He  eftablished  his  covenant  with  Noah  and  his  sons,  and 
with  their  seed  after  them,  for  perpetual  generations,  in 
pursuance  of  which  he  would  preserve  all  flesh  from  des- 
truction by  another  general  deluge,  as  long  as  the  earth 
should  remain.  In  this  way  he  treated  with  Abraham, 
when  he  called  him  away  from  his  country  and  his  kin- 
dred, and  his  father's  house,  to  sojourn  in  a  land  in  which 
he  was  a  stranger.  He  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham, 
in  the  fulfilment  of  which  he  would  confer  upon  Abra- 
ham and  his  posterity  great  and  numero'.is  blessings,  and 
ultimately  extend  the  blessings  to  all  the  families  of  the 
earth.  And  in  this  way  he  continues  to  treat  with  man- 
kind. All  the  blessings,  which  from  generation  to  gener-. 
ation,  he  bestOM  s  upon  the  church  and  upon  the  >vorld, 
are  b«stov,cd  in  puvsuance  of  seme  existing  covenant. 


(     6     ) 

By  the  influence  of  Judaizing  teachers,  many  of  the 
Xialatians  appear  to  have  been  removed  from  him  who 
had  called  them  into  the  grace  of  Christ,  unto  another  gos- 
pel. They  renounced  the  doctrine  of  free  grace,  and 
insisted  on  the  deeds  of  the  law  as  constituting,  at  least 
in  part,  the  ground  of  justification  before  God.  To  cor- 
rect this  error,  in  this  material  point,  was  evidently  the 
primary  object  of  this  inspired  epistle.  Having  touched 
upon  his  subject  in  the  preceding  chapters,  the  apostle 
enters,  in  this  third  chapter,  upon  a  train  of  argument, 
peculiarly  close  and  solemn.  After  upbraiding  his  Gala- 
tian  brethren  with  their  folly  in  departing  from  the  doc- 
trine, which  he  had  taught  them,  and  seriously  expostu- 
lating with  them  on  the  subject ;  he  alledges,  for  the  re- 
futation of  their  error,  and  for  their  conviction  of  the 
truth,  the  memorable  case  of  Abraham.  Abraham  be- 
lieved God^  and  it  zuas  accounted  to  him  for  righteousness. 
And  the  scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  -would  justify  the 
■lieathen  also,  thraiigh  faith  ^  preached  the  gospel  unto  Abra- 
■ham,  saying,  Li  tjiee  shall  all  nations  he  blessed.  As  it  is, 
therefore,  a  matter,  which  ought  to  be  well  understood, 
ihat  all  xvho  are  of  faith  are  the  children  of  Abraham  ;  so, 
it  is  equally  certain,  that  they  are  blessed  zuith  him.  As 
he  was  justified  by  faith,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law, 
so  also  are  they.  As  the  law,  indeed,  requires  perfect 
obedience,  and  pronounces  its  curse  against  every  one 
who  continueth  not  in  all  thinp-s.  xvhich  are  tvritten  in  it, 
to  do  them;  it  is  exceedingly  plain,  that  none  of  man- 
kind, all  of  whom  are  transgressors,  can  ever  be  justified 
by  the  deeds  of  the  law.  But  Christ  hath  redeemed  us 
from  the  curse  of  the  laxv,  being  made  a  curse  for  us  ;  that 
through  him  the  blessi?ig  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the 
'Gentiles  ;  that  rve  also  ?night  receive  the  promise  of  the 
spirit,  through  faith. 

Brethren,  says  the  apostle,  I  speak  after  the  manner  of 
men  :  I  will  illustrate  the  argument  by  a  familiar  case  : 


(     7     > 

Though  it  be  but  a  Man's  covenant^  yet  if  it  be  confirmed^ 
no  man  disannuUeth  or  addetft  thereto.  Noiv^  to  apply  thf: 
case,  to  Abraham  aiid  his  seed  xvere  the  promises  made  . 
Noty  indeed,?©  seeds  as  of  many^  or  as  if  different  sorts 
were  intended,  some  believers,  and  some  unbelievers, 
some  to  be  justified  by  faith,  and  some  by  the  deeds  of 
the  law  ;  but  to  seed^  ais  intending  but  one  sort  or  descrip 
tion,  namely,  Christ  in  person,  and  all  true  believers  as 
included  and  blessed  in  him.*  But  if  the  promises  wer<< 
made  to  Abraham  and  his  seed  :  if  the  covENANT,which 
respected  him  and  all  true  believers,  and  which  insured 
their  justification  by  faith,  xvas  confirmed  by  God  in 
Christ ;  then,  it  is  manifest,  that  these  promises,  this 
COVENANT,  the  laxvy  which  zvas  four  hundred  and  thir-^ 
ty  years  after ^  could  not  disanmd.  The  law  was  not  in= 
tended  to  exhibit  the  terms  of  justification  before  God  j 
these  were  fixed  in  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham, 
and  were  not  to  be  altered.  The  law  is  not  against  the 
promises  of  God ;  but  it  was  added  because  of  transgres- 
sion ;  and  was  intended  to  convince  those  who  were  un- 
der it  of  sin,  to  shew  them  the  impossibility  of  their 
own  works,  and  as  a  schoolmastor  to  direct  them  to  Christy 
that  they  might  be  justified  by  faith.  But  now,  since 
faith  is  come^  or  since  Christ  the  object  of  faith  has  ap- 
peared, as  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness  to  every- 
one that  believethy  we  are  no  longer ^  in  the  sense  that  the 
Jews  formerly  were,  wider  a  schoolmaster.  The  darkness 
is  past  and  the  true  light  now  shineth.  There  is  no  longer 
a  distinction  of  nations,  conditions  or  sexes,  in  respect 
•  to  the  privileges  and  blessings  of  the  covenant.  For  as 
many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christy  have  put  on. 
Christ.  There  is  neither  fexv  nor  Greek^  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free  y  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  ;    for.  ye 

ARE  ALL  ONE  IN  ChRIST  JeSUS.    AnD  IF  YE  BE  ChRIST*S, 
THEN  ARE  YE   AbRAHAm's  SEED,  AND  HEIRS  ACCORDING 

*  Compare  verse  16,  -with  verses  7  ami  26,  with  our  text,  and 
other  parallel  passages. 


(     8     ) 

TO  THE  PROM  rsE.  If  vc  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye  brought 
into  a  covenant  relation  to  Abraham ;  are  justified  in  the 
same  manner  in  -which  he  was  ;  and  are  entitled  to  all 
the  privileges  and  blessings,  which  -were  contained  in  the 
promises  made  to  him  arid  his  seed. 

Suck,  my  brethren,  is  the  train  of  reasoning  employed 
by  the  apostle  in  this  instructive  chapter.  If  is  particu- 
larly to  be  remarked,  that  with  a  view  to  convince  his 
G^fetian  brethren  of  their  unhappy  error,  in  respect  to 
justification,  he  ascends  to  the  memorable  period  of  the 
institution  of  the  church  in  the  family  of  Abraham  ; 
takes  THE  COVENANT,  then  made  with  Abraham  and 
HIS  SEED,  and  traces  it  down,  in  the  transmission  of  its 
privileges  and  blessings,  to  the  Gentile  churches.  His 
whole  argument  proceeds  on  the  plain  scripture  gi-ound, 
that  THE  COVENANT,  which  was  made  with  Abraham, 
and  which  constituted  the  church  in  his  family,  was  still 
in  force,  and  was  never  to  be  abrogated  ;  that  the  Gentile 
churches  were  embraced  in  that  covenant,  as  making 
one  with  the  Jewish  church  ;  and  that,  by  virtue  of  that 
COVENANT,  believers  of  every  age  and  nation  were  to  be 
considered  as  the  children  of  Abraham,  inheriting  by- 
divine  right,  all  the  privileges  and  blessings  comprised 
in  the  promises  made  to  him  and  his  seed.  The  text, 
then,  thus  contemplated  in  its  connection,  presents,  for 
our  consideration,  this  great  and  interesting  doctrine, 
viz.— ^ 

In  God's  covenant  or  promise  with  Abraham, 

PROVISION  WAS  MADE  FOR  THE  CONTINUANCE  OF  THE 
CHURCH  FORMED  BY  IT,  AND  THUS  FOR  THE  TRANSMIS- 
SION OF  THE  PRIVILEGES  AND  BLESSINGS  CONTAINED 
IN  IT,  FROM  GENERATION  TO  GENERATION,  DOWN  TO 
THE  CLOSE  OF  TIME. 

With  a  view  to  establish   and  illustrate  this  doctrinal 


(     9     ) 

proposition,  I  propose,  as  the  general  method  of  dis- 
course, 

I.  To  shew,  that  the  covenant  which  was  made  with 
Abraham,  and  by  which  the  church  was  formed  in  his 
family,  was  intended  to  be  perpetual,  or  to  continue 
throughout  all  generations  :  And, 

II.  To  shew  more  particularly,  what  provision  was 
tnade  in  that  covenant  for  the  continuance  of  the  church 
formed  by  it,  and  the  transmission  of  the  blessings  con- 
tained in  it. 

It  cannot  be  necessaiy,  in  a  labored  manner,  to  prove, 
that,  bv  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  a  church  was 
formed  in  his  family.  Of  this  fact,  as  it  may  appear  in 
the  course  of  our  subject,  the  scriptures  afford  the  most 
plenary  evidence.  To  Abraham  and  his  seed  in  the  line 
of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  pertained^  as  the  apostle  to  the  Ro- 
mans assures  us,  the  adoption^  and  the  glory ^  and  the  cove- 
nants^ and  the  giving  of  the  /fliy,  and  the  service  of  God,, 
and  the  promises.  More  than  what  is  here  expressed 
certainly  could  not  be  necessary  to  constitute  a  church  in 
the  strictest  sense.  Accordingly,  though  the  tei-m  church 
is  not  used  in  the  old  testament  scriptures,  yet  other 
terms  of  equivalent  import  are  abundantly  used.  And 
in  the  new  testament  the  body  of  God's  ancient  acknow- 
ledged people,  constituted  by  the  covenant  made  with 
Abraham,  is  expressly  recognized  as  a  church.  It  was 
thus  recognized  by  Stephen,  when,  in  his  memorable  ad- 
dress before  the  Jewish  Sanhedrim,  speaking  of  Moses, 
he  said.  This  is  he,  that  v/as  in  the  church  iji  the 
■wilderness,  rvith  the  angel  that  spake  to  him  in  the  mount 
Sina,  and  ivith  ottr  fathers ;  who  rtceivcd  the  livshj  ora- 
cles to  give  unto  ?/?.* 

*  Act#  vii.  33. 

B 


(     50    ) 

That  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  and  constitut-' 
ing  a  church  in  his  family,  was  intended  to  continue,  and 
actually  did  continue,  until  the  coming  of  Messiah,  and 
the  introduction  of  the  Gospel  dispensation,  is  conceded 
on  ail  hands.  It  will  be,  moreover,  conceded,  that  if  it 
did  not  ceases,  on  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation, it  is  still  in  force  ;  and  consequently  the  church 
formed  by  it  still  continues,  and  will  continue  to  the  end 
of  time.  It  might,  therefore,  suffice  for  our  present  pur- 
pose should  it  be  made  to  appear,  that  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  and  his  seed  did  not  cease,  when  the  gospel 
dispensation  was  introduced.  But  this,  and  more  than 
this,  it  is  believed,  will  be  made  clearly  to  appear. 

Several  arguments  in  support  of  the  proposition,  that 
the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  and  his  »eed,^and  con- 
sequently the  church  formed  bv  it,  did  not  cease,  on  the 
introduction  of  the  gospel  dispensation,  but  were  intend- 
ed to  continue  throughout  all  generations,  I  will  now, 
my  brethren,  submit  to  your  serious  consideration  : 

1.  By  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  he  was  con 
stituted  THE  TATHEfi  of  all  them  that  believe, 

Abraham  was,  unquestionably,  a  man  of  pre-eminent 
faith.  But  it  was  not  on  account  of  the  pre-eminence  of 
his  faith,  simply,  that  he  obtained  die  title  of  the  father 
of  the  faithful.  This  venerable  title,  bestowed  upon 
him  by  the  Spiiit  of  inspiration,  is  of  a  much  higher  im- 
port, than  merely  that  he  was  an  eminent  examplar  of 
faith.  As  for  me^  says  God  to  Abraham,  behold  my  cove- 
nant is  ivith  thee^  and  thov  shalt  be  a  father  of 
MANY  NATIONS.-*  This  is  explained,  in  the  fourth  of 
Romans,  as  referring,  not  merely  to  Abraham's  natural 
posterit}'- ;  but  also  to  his  children  bij  faith.  Therefore 
it  is  of  fait n^  says  the  apostle,  that   it  mi^ht  be  bij  grace, 

*  Gen.  xvii.  4. 


(  11  ) 

TO  THE  F.KD  THE  PROMISE  MIGHT  BF.  SURK  TO  ALL  THK 
SE3D,  XOT  TOTHATO>fLY  WHICH  IS  OF  THE  LAW,  BUT  TO 
THAT  ALSO  WHICH  IS  OF  THE  FAI.TH  OF  ABRAHAM,  WHO 
IS  THE  FATHER  OF  US  ALL,  flJ  it  iswrttteU,    I  HAVE  MADE 

THEE  A  FATHER  OF  MANY  NATIONS.  Hciewe  are  taught, 
that  the  covenant  of  promise,  made  with  Abraham,  had 
respect  to  other  seed  besides  his  natural  posterity  ;  and 
^t/  that  covenant  he  was  constituted  the  father  of  all  them 
that  believe.  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision^  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had^  being 
yet  wicirctcmcised ;  for  this  very  purpose,  that  he 
might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe^  though  theij 
be  not  circumcised^  that  righteousness  might  be  imputed 
to  them  also. 

But,  mv  bretkren,  in  what  respect  was  Abraham  con- 
stituted the  father  of  all  who  believe  ?  Certainly  it  was  a 
constitution  of  very  high  import,  or  it  would  not  have 
been  attended  with  so  remarkable  a  solemnity,  nor  have 
been  referred  to  by  the  sacred  writers  with  so  great  an 
interest.  But  what  was  its  import?  If  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham  has  been  disannulled,  and  the 
church  formed  by  it,  abolished ;  if,  on  the  introduction 
of  the  Christian  dispensation,  anew  church  was  formed, 
and  a  new  covenant  instituted,  materially  different  from 
that  made  with  Abraham  ;  in  what  important  respect 
can  Abraham  be  considered  as  the  father  of  christian 
believers  ?  If  we  be  members  of  a  different  church,  form- 
ed by  a  different  covenant  from  that  of  Abraham,  what 
relation  have  we  to  Abraham  ?  In  what  respect  arc  we 
his  children  ?  How  is  it  that  we  are  blessed  with  him  ? 
that  we  arelieirs  according  to  the  promise  made  to  him  ? 
and  that  on  his  account,  as  our  father,  righteousness  is 
imputed  unto  us  ? 

But  Abraham  -zfrz^made  the  father  of  many  nations  ; 
and  all  who  are  of  faith  arc  his  children,  and  ort" blessed 
with  him.     This  is  according  to  the  covenant  of  pvrqiji:-' 


(      12      ) 

which  God  made  with  Abraham.  He  received  the  sign 
of  circumcision^  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith 
7vhich  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised,  that  he  might 

BE  THE  FATHER  OF  ALL  THEM  THAT  BELIEVE,  THOUGH 

THEY  BE  NOT  CIRCUMCISED,  though  thc}'  be  not  his 
natural  posterity,  that  righteousness  might  be  im-^. 

PUTED  TO  THEM  ALSO. 

By  the  covenant,  made  with  Abraham,  a  church  was 
formed,  which  was  to  be  continued  down,  through  all 
successive  generations,  and  which  was  to  embrace,  not 
only  his  natural  posterity,  but  the  faithful  of  all  nations. 
Of  this  church  Abraham  was  the  covenant  father  ;  and, 
in  the  capacity  of  covenant  father,  he  received  the  prom- 
ises. As  the  fadier  of  the  church,  and  the  heir  of  the 
xvorld,  the  whole  inheritance  was  conveyed  to  him  for 
himself  and  his  seed ;  and  the  act  of  conveyance  was 
solemnly  ratified  and  sealed,  by  the  sign  of  circumcision. 
The  covenant  made  with  him  had  respect  to  the  whole 
church,  of  which  he  was  the  representative  and  father  ; 
and  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  were  to  be  transmitted 
to  the  latest  generations. 

In  this  view  of  the  subject,  AbraJiam  appears  to  be 
the  father  of  the  faithful,  in  a  respect  exceedingly  inter- 
esting and  important.  In  this  vicAv  of  the  subject,  it  is 
easy  to  see  how  the  blessing  of  Abraham  comes  upon 
the  Gentiles  :  how  all  who  are  of  faith  are  blessed  with 
faithful  Abraham  ;  and,  partly  at  least,  in  what  sense,  if 
we  be  Christ's  we  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  ac- 
cording to  the  promise.  But  in  any  other  view,  these 
scripture  representations  will  appear,  it  is  thought,  conir 
paratively  unrneaning  and  unimportant,  if  not  utterly  un- 
intelligible and  incongruous. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  plain,  that  it  was  by  the  cov- 
iNANT  OF  PROMISE  which  God  made  with  him,  that  A- 


(  1^>  ) 

braham  was  constituted  the  father  of  all  ^vho  belkvc  ; 
and  believers  of  cveiy  age  and  nation  are  his  children, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise,  only  by  virtue  of 

THEIR    COVENANT    RELATION    TO  HIM.       And  from  this, 

the  conclusion  is  equally  plain,  that  the  covenant  made 
with  Abraham,  and  consequently  the  church  constituted 
by  it,  did  not  cense  on  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation ;  but  were  intended  to  be  continued  to  the 
•latest  periods  of  time.  For,  if  believers,  to  the  latest  pe- 
riods of  time,  are  to  be  accounted  children  of  Abraham, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise  made  to  him ;  then 
the  covenant,  by  virtue  of  which  they  become  children 
and  heirs,  and  consequently  the  clmrch  fonr.cd  by  it, 
must  continue. 

2.  God's  covenant  of  promise  made  with  Abraham 
comprised  all  the  blessings  and  privileges  ever  promised 
to  believers,  and  to  the  church. 

Irvill  establish  mtj  covenant  betxueen  me  and  thee  and 
thy  seed  after  thee^  s^.ys  the  Lord  to  Abraham,  for  an 
everlasting  covenant^  to  be  a   God  unto  thee  and  to 

THY  SEED  APTER  THEE  :* AnD  IN    THEE,   AND   IN  THY 

SEED  SHALL   ALL  THE  NATIONS  OF  THE    EARTH  BE   SLES- 

SED.f  These  promises,  my  brethren,  are  of  vast  com-» 
prehension.  As  they  respect  Abraham  and  his  seed,  in 
their  personal  and  family  capacity,  they  comprise  everv 
personal  and  family  blessing,  pertaining  both  to  the  life 
which  now  is,  and  to  that  which  is  to  come.  As  they 
respect  Abraham  and  his  seed  in  their  church  capacity, 
they  comprise  the  Messiah,  and  all  the  blessings  ever  to 
be  conferred  upon  the  church  and  upon  the  world  through 
him. 

To   Abraham  and  his  seed^  says  the  apostle,  -vera  the 


*  Gen.  xvii.  7.     f  Ibid,  xii.  3.    xviii.  18.    xxii.  18.    xxvi.  4.  aid 
xxviii.  14. 


(     14     ) 

promises  made.  To  Abraham  and  his  seed, compre* 
hending  Messiah,  and  all  true  believers  as  included  in 
him,  were  njade  the  promises,  which  comprise  all  the 
blessings  ever  to  be  conferred  upon  the  church  and  peo' 
pie  of  God. 

Was  this  covenant,  then,  so  vastly  comprehensive  in 
irespect  to  its  blessings,  ever  to  be  abrogated  ?  Was  the 
church  which  was  formed  by  it,  and  so  richly  endowed, 
ever  to  be  abolished  ?  Was  there  to  be  another  covenant, 
comprising  more  and  greater  blessings?  another  church, 
mare  lar^^ely  and  richly  endowed  ?  No,  my  brethren  ; 
smother  covenant,  comprising  more  and  greater  blessings, 
could  not  be  constituted ;  another  church,  more  largaly 
and  richly  endowed,  could  not  be  formed.  It  is  true, 
indeed,  that  under  the  gospel  the  church  eiy'oys  greater 
privileges  than  it  could  enjoy  under  the  law.  So  in  the 
days  of  Moses  and  Joshua  the  chut;ch  enjoyed  greater 
privileges  than  it  did  in  the  days  of  Abraham  and  Isaac ; 
and  in  the  days  of  David  and  Solomon,  greater  than  in 
the  days  of  Moses  and  Joshua  ;  and  in  the  days  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  greater  than  in  the  days  of  David  and 
Solomon.  And  in  the' days  of  the  Mellinium,  the  church 
will  enjov  greater  privileges  than  at  present  it  enjoys. 
But,  all  the  privileges  ever  enjoyed,  and  ever  to  be  en- 
joyed, by  the  church,  were  comprised  in  God's  covenant 
of  promise  with  Abraham ;  and,  in  pursuance  of  that 
covenant,  have  been  conferred,  and  will  be  conferred, 
from  period  to  period,  according  to  the  progression  ot 
the  great  work  of  redemption,  and  the  advancement  of 
the  church  towards  its  ultimate  perfection. 

Accordingly  the  sacred  writers,  not  only  in  the  old 
testament,  but  also  in  the  new,  constantly  recur  to  the 
covenant  with  Abraham,  as  the  grand  source  of  all  the 
blessings,  and  the  grand  charter  of  all  the  privileges  of 
the  people  and  church  of  God,  as  well  under  the  Chris- 


(  15  ) 

tian,  as  under  the  Jewish,  dispensation.  He  hath  holptn 
his  servant  Israel^  says  the  mother  of  our  Lord,  in  re- 
mcmbrance  of  his  mercy  ^  as  he  spake  to  our  fathets^  to  A- 
hrahayn  and  his  seed  forever.  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of 
Israel^  says  Zacharias,  for  he  hath  visited  and  redeemed 
his  people^  and  hath  raised  up  an  horn  of  salvation  for  us 
in  the  house  of  his  servant  David ;  to  perform  the  mercy 
pro77iised  to  our  fathers.,  and  to  remember  his  holy  cove- 
nant ;  the  oath  which  he  sware  to  our  father  Abraham.  TV 
are  the  children  of  the  prophets^  says  Peter  to  the  multi- 
tude assembled  at  the  beautiful  gate  of  the  temple,  Te 
are  the  childrefi  of  the  prophets^  and  of  the  covenantxvhich 
God  made  with  our  fathers,  saying  unto  Abraham,  And  in 
thif  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the  earth  be  blessed, 
Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  says 
Paul,  that  the  blcssijig  of  Abraham  might  come  on  the  Gen- 
tiles  through  Jesus  Christ,  If  the  inheritance  be  of  the 
law,  it  is  no  more  of  promise  ;  but  God  gave  it  to  Abra- 
ham by  proJnise,  And  if  ye  be  Christ^s,  ye  are  Abraham^s 
seed,  and  heirs  accordijig  to  the  promise.^  Thus  it  ap- 
pears that  Israel  was  holpen  by  the  coming  of  Mes- 
siah,   IN    REMEMBRANCE    OF    THE    MF.RCY    PROMISED   TO 

ABRAHAM  AND  HIS  SEED  FOREVER.  The  horn  of  Salva- 
tion, raised   up   in  the  hou&e  of  £)avid,  even  christ, 

WAS  ONLY  TO  PERFORM  THE  MERCY  PROMISED  TO  THE 
FATHERS  In    the  COVENANT  WITH  ABRAHAM.       All  the 

kindreds  of  the  earth  ard  blessed  under  the  gospel,  on- 
ly   IN  PURSUANCE  OF   THE  COVENANT  WITH  ABRAHAM. 

The  blessings   which  come  upon  the   Gentiles  through 

Christ,    ARE     ONLY     THE    BLESSINGS    COMPRISED  IN  THE 

COVENANT  WITH  ABRAHAM.  The  inheritance  was  given 
to  Abraham,  as  the  father  of  the  Church,  and  the  heir  of 
the  world,  in  the  promise  to  him  ;  and  belie\-ers  under 
the  gospel,  as  the  children  of  Abraham,  are  heirs,  only 

ACCORDING  Td  the  COVENANT  WHICH  GoD  MADE  WITH 

•  I.uke  i.  54,  55.  Ibid,  68—73.  Acts  iii.  25.    Context  aniTejit. 


(     16     ) 
iiisi,  an'd  inherit  only  the  BtEssrltGs  or  tstat  coVe- 

NANT. 

Was  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  then,  ei-et  t& 
be  abrogated  ?  No,  my  brethren,  to  abrogate  that  cov- 
evant  were  to  abrogate  the  grand  charter  of  all  the  bless- 
ings and  privileges  of  God's  people.  Was  the  church 
formed  by  that  covenant  ever  to  be  abolished  ?  No  ;  to 
abolish  that  church,  were  to  abolish  the  kingdom  and 
glory  of  Messiah.  Was  there  ever  to  be  another  covenant 
instituted,  and  another  church  formed  ?  No,  for  all  the 
promises  of  God  are  made  to  Abraham  and  his  seed;  all 
the  blessings  of  Messiah  arid  his  kingdom  are  secured  and 
entailed  by  covenant,  and  by  oath,  to  the  church  formed 
in  Abraham.'s  family,  and  can  ne^"er  be  alienated.  The 
numerous  and  precious  promises,  recorded  in  the  Psalms 
and  in  the  Prophets,  concerning  the  glory  of  Christ  and 
the  extension  and  blessings  of  his  kingdom,  are  only  an 
unfolding  in  detail  of  the  promises  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham.  They  are  addressed  to  Jacob,  to  Israel,  to 
Zion,  to  the  church  originally  formed  in  Abraham's  fam- 
,jlv  ;  and  as  they  can  never  belong  to  any  other  covenant, 
r.or  be  applied  to  any  other  church,  they  afford  the  most 
plenary  assurance,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  and 
church  shall  continue,  as  long  as  the  sun  and  moon  en- 
dure.* 

*  As  nothing  could  be  move  unfounded,  so  what  could  be 
more  derogative  of  the  hoi-.or  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  tlian  the 
sentiment  that  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed, 
v/as  only  a  te?i2/>oral  covenant,  and  included  only  temjioral  bleijs- 
ingsl  Have  not  temporal  blessings  been  bestowed  upon  mankind 
unirersally  ;  and,  upon  man)-,  in  as  great  abundance,  asu])on  the 
])atriarch  and  his  descendants  ?  Why  then  may  not  Jehovah  be 
said  to  have  been  a  Gcd  to  all  the  individuals  and  families  of  the 
earth,  as  v/ell  as  to  Abraliam  and  his  seed  ? 

But  at  the  same  time  that  we  are  told,  that  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  Avas  only  a  temfwral  co\  enant,  including  only  tempo- 
ral blessings  ;  Ave  are  also  told,  that  the  great  promise  of  this  co\  - 
cnant,  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed  after  him,  had 
respect,  not  to  his  iratural,  but  only  to  his  s/ii ritual  seed.  A 
SPIRITUAL  seed;  but  a  merely  temporal  covenant  and  mere- 


(     15^     ) 

3.  The  covenant,  made  with  Abraham  aiicl  his  seed, 
IS  the  covenant  of"  which,  in  the  new  testament,  Christ 
is  said  to  be  the  M'.^diator,  and  which  is  dcsi^iated  as 
the  covenant  to  be  established  with  the  church  in  the 
days  of  tlie  gospel. 

This  ?.?  the  covenant  that  I  7ri//  make  luhh  the  house 
of  Isra-c!^  after  ihose  days^  saith  the  Lord^  I  will  put  my 
laws  in  their  windy  and  rv rite  them  in  their  hearts  ;    and 

I  Vv-ILL    BE    TO  THEM    A  GoD,   AND    THEY    SHALL  BE  TO 
ME   A  PEOPLE. t 

This  is  called,  indeed,  a  xlw  covenant :  and  on  thlr? 
account  has  sometimes,  for  want  of  proper  attention  to 
the  subject,  beeri  supposed  to  be  difftirent  from  any  cov- 
enant before  established  -\\'ith  the  church.  It  is  called  a 
XEw  covenant,  because  of  its  revival  and  renewal,  after 
it  had  been  for  a  long  time  greatly  obscured,  and  almost 
lost  out  of  sight,  by  the  legal  Jews,  who  placed  their 
chief  dependence,  on  the  law  of  Moses,  the  covenant 
viade  rvith  their  fathers  at  Mount  Simsi^  rvhen  the  Lord 
hroifght  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt ;  and  because  of  its 
new  and  greater  clearness,  and  extension,  under  a  new, 

ly  TEMPORAL  blessings  1  Yes  ;  to  the  father  of  the  faithful,  and  to 
believers  of  every  nation  and  age,  God  onlv  promised  to  j^ive  them 
the  land  of  Canfian  for  a  possession  I  Such,  according  to  the  An- 
tipxdobaptist  t'\eory,  such  is  the  l)'essing  of  Abraham  '.vhich  was 
to  come  upon  the  Gentiles  tiiroiigh  Jesus  Christ !  Such  is  the  in- 
heritance, which  Avas  given  by  promise  to  the  patriarch  of  the 
churc!i :  and  to  which  tliose  v/ho  are  Christ's  are,  by  covenant 
and  by  oath,  made  heirs  ;  Alas  I  believer,  child  of  Abraham. 
heir  accordirig  to  th-e  proniise  ;  \\nw  greatly  ha-jt  thou  been 
deceived  In  respect  to  th.'j  inhcritai:cc  '.  But  is  this  a  jv:st  account 
of  the  r^.atter  ?  Can  it  be  admitted  for  a  moment?  Should  we 
not  indeed,  l;e  ready  to  conclude,  that  it  v/as  in  vicv.'  of  some 
sentiment  like  this  now  in  question,  that  the  apostle  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, jealous  foi'  the  hr.nor  of  his  God,  and  the  Go.i  of  his  father 
Abraham,  so  explicitly  protested,  that  the  patriarch  and  his  faith-. 
ful  iiLcd  drftirc  a  nETTER  country^  that  is^  mi  hkavexly  ;  and 
therefore,  that  God  iv  not  ashamf n  to  hr  crr^rd  tiieiti  Gon, 
I  OR  he  kath'prepared  foi;  ;  ' 
+  Jer.  xxxi.  o.l.  Heb.  viii.  10. 
f 


(      18     ) 

and  brighter,  and  more  extended,  dispensation.  So  the 
great  commandment  t)f  love,  which  zvas  from  the  beghi- 
?img,  is,  under  the  gospel,  called  a  new  coinmandment ; 
because  the  darkness  is  past  and  the  true  light  7iorv  shin- 
eth.^  The  Sinai  covenant,  the  Mosaic  /axv  ofcfimmand- 
vients  contained  in  ordinances.,  as  it  was  added  but  for  tem- 
porary purposes,  has  waxed  old,  and  is  vanished  aAvay. 
But  the  covenant  originally  made  with  Abraham  and  his 
seed,  as  the  permanent  constitution  of  the  church,  Avill 
never  wax  old,  but  will  always  be  new. 

As  the  Lord  said  to  Abraham,  Ixvill  establish  my  cov- 
enant between  me  and  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee — to  be 
A  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee  ;  so 
he  said  to  Israel  in  Egypt,  I  will  take  you  to  me 

FOR  A  PEOPLE  AND  I  WILL  3E  TO  YOU  A  GoD  tf  and  SO 

he  said  concerning  the  house  of  Israel,  and  the  house  of 
Judah  in  the  days  of  the  Gospel  ;  I  will  put  my  law  in 
their  inward  parts  and  xvrite  it  in  their  hearts  ;  and  I 

WILL  BE  THEIR  GoD  AND  THEY    SHALL   BE    MY  PEOPLE. 

The  covenant,  or  the  great  and  leading  promise  of  the 
covenant,  as  expressed  in  these  several  instances,  is  the 
same.  In  the  last  instance,  indeed,  there  is  an  intima- 
mation  of  a  renewal  of  heart,  in  those,  with  whom  the  co- 
venant is  established.  The  same  also,  was  intimated, 
at  the  first  establishment  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham 
and  his  seed,  by  the  sign  of  circumcision,  which  was  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith.,  and  a  sacrament  signif- 
icant of  a  renovation  of  heart,  or  a  nexv  creature.  For 
the  promise  that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  xvorldxvas  not 
to  Abraham  or  his  seed  through  the  laxv,  but  through  the 
righteousness  offaith.%  Accordingly  in  the  old  testament 
a  renovation  of  heart,  or  inward  conformity  to  the  law 
of  God,  is  abundantly  inculcated  ;  and  the  promise  of  the 
Spirit  to  God's'  covenant  people,   and   to  their  seed  for 

*  John  ii.  r,  8.  t  Exod.  ii.  7.         \  Rom.  iv.  13. 


(     19     ) 

this  purpose,  is  often  repeated.  And  in  the  new  testa- 
jnent  wc  are  taught,  that  the  promise  of  the  Spirit,  was 
included  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham,  or  in  that  bless- 
ing of  Abraham  which  comes  upon  the  Gentiles  through 
Jesus  Christ.  Thus  we  read  in  our  context  ;  Christ 
hath  redeemed  Its  from  the  curse  of  the  law^  being  made  a 
curse  for  us,  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come  on 
the  Gentiles  through  Jesvs  Christ ;  that  we  might  re- 
ceive THE  PROMISE  OF  THE  SPIRIT  THROUGH  FAITH. 

On  the  slightest  inspection  it  is  plain,  that  the  cove- 
nant, mentioned  in  the  several  instances  now  before  us,  is 
one  and  the  same.  In  the  first  instance  it  was  establish- 
ed with  Abraham  and  his  seed  :  comprising  the  church 
under  every  dispensation,  to  the  end  of  time.  In  the 
second  instance  it  was  propounded  to  the  nation  of  Isra- 
el in  Egypt  ;  comprising,  at  that  period,  the  body  of 
Abraham's  seed,  and  therefore  oi  the  church.  In  the 
last  instance  it  was  prapounded  anew  to  the  hxDuse  of  Is- 
rael and  to  the  hoiise  of  Judah  under  the  gospel,  as  the 
covenant  to  be  continued  with  the  church  in  gospel  times. 
And  in  each  of  the  instances,  the  great  promise  is,  TO 
BE  A  God  to  the  church,  and  to  the  seed  of  the 
CHURCH.  For  as  in  the  first  instance  the  covenant  was 
established  with  Abraham  and  his  seed  ;  so  in  the  second, 
it  was  made  with  the  nation  of  Israel,  including  their  lit- 
tle ones  ;  and  in  the  last,  with  the  house  of  Israel :  And 
it  is  well  understood  that  the  term  house,  when  used  in 
this  sense,  always  comprises  both  parents  and  children. 

This  is  the  covenant,  of  which  Christ  is  the  Mgdi- 
ATOR,  and  which  is  said  to  be  a  better  covenant.,  establish- 
ed upon  better  promises,  than  that  which  was  added  to  it, 
and  made  with  Israel  at  Mount  Sinai.  This  is  the  cov- 
enant which  was  to  be  continued  with  the  church,  after 
the  Sinai  covenant  had  v/axed  old  and  vanished  away. 


(      20      ) 

Accordinglr,    Peter,   as  before  quoted,  says,  Tt   are 
the  children  of  the  prophets^  and  of  the  covenant  xvhich 
God  made  with  our  fathers^  saying  unto  Abraham^  Aridin 
thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  oftheearthbe  blessed.  This 
address,  it  will  be  remembei-ed,  was  made  to  the  people, 
after  the  ascension  of  the  Saviour,  on  the  full  risen  morn- 
ing of  the  gospel  day.     In  another  address,  delivered  a- 
bout  the  same  time,  the  same    apostle  says  ;  Repent  and 
be  baptizedevery  one  of  you  in  the  7iame  of  the  Lordfesus^ 
for  the  remission  of  sins  ;  mid  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.     Tor  the  promise   is  to  you  and  to  your 
childre?i^  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off^  even  as  many  as  the 
Lord  our  God  shall  call.^     In  this   passage,  as  well  as  in 
the  former,  there  is  a  most  evident   allusion  to  the  cov- 
enant made  with  Abraham.      The  promise  is  to  you  and 
to  your  children  ;  for  the  Lord  said  to  Abraham,  Ixuill  be 
a  Godwito  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.     It  is  also,  to 
all  that  are  afar  off  even    as  many  as  the  Lord  cur  God 
shall  call ;  for  the  Lord  said  fui-ther  to  Abraham,  Ln  thee, 
and  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth   be  bles- 
sed.    But,  my  brethren,   if  this  covenant  with  Abraham 
and  his  seed,  was  abolished  on  the  coming  of  Messiah, 
and  was  to  have  no  existence  under  the  gospel  ;  why  is 
it  in  this  solemn  manner,  on  the   bright  morning  of  the 
gospel  day,  brought  forward  by  this  distinguished  apostle, 
made  the  basis  of  his  exhortation  to  the  people,  and  re- 
ferred to  as  the  very  source  of  all  the  blessings  to  them 
and  their  children,  and  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  ? 

In  our  context,  as  we  have  already  seen,  as  vrcU  as 
in  the'  passage  just  quoted  from  his  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews, the  apostle  Paul  treats  most  explicitly  of  the  cov- 
enant with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  as  being  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  church  in  gospel  times.  He  declares  it  to  be 
a  covenant,  confirmed  in  Clirist,  and  which  could  not  be 

^  Acts  ii.  38,  39, 


(     2t      ) 

^istuinulled  ;  and  refers  the  churches  to  it  as  their  grand 
and  unalterable  charter. 

In  the  fourth  chapter  of  this  same  epistle  to  the  Ga- 
latians,  the  apostle  again  brings  forward  the  covenant  as 
the  basis  of  his  argument.  It  vs  tor  it  ten  that  Abraham 
had  two  sons^  the  one  by  a  bond  mnid^  the  other  by  a  free 
xvoman.  Exit  he  xvho  xvas  of  the  bond  xvotnan  "was  borri 
after  tbefesh  ;  bitt  he  of  the  free  xvovxanxvas  by  promise. 
JVhich  things  are  an  allegory  ;  for  these  are  the  trvo  cove- 
nants ;  the  one  from  mount  Sina^  xjohich  gender  eth  to  bond- 
age^ xvhich  is  Agar^  or  the  bond  woman.  For  this  Agar  is, 
allegorically,  mount  Sina  in  Arabia^  where  this  covenant 
was  given,  and  ansxvereth  to  ferusalem  xvhich  noxv  isy 
and  is  in  bondage  xvith  her  children  ;  or  to  the  unbeliev- 
ing Jews,  who,  through  their  blind  adherence  to  this  Si- 
nai covenant,  are  in  bondage  with  their  children  to  the 
weak  and  beggarlv  elements.  But  Jerusalem  xvhich  is 
above,  the  true  and  spiritual  church  of  God,  composed 
of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  but  principally  hitherto  of 
Jc\vs,  is  free,  xvhich  is  the  mother  of  us  all,  as  Sarah,  the 
free  woman  was  of  Isaac.  Noxuxve,  brethren,  we  Gen- 
tile believers,  as  well  as  Jewish,  as  Isaac  xvas,  are  the 
children  of  promise. 

The  two  covenants,  allegoricallv  represented,  the  one 
by  the  free  woman,  and  the  other  by  the  bond  wo- 
man, are  e^  idently  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham 
and  his  seed,  and  the  covenant  which  was  added  at 
mount  Sinai.  For  these  are  the  covenants  of  Avhich  the 
apostle  had  been  largely  treating  in  the  preceding  chap- 
ter, and  with  rcicrgnce  to  which  he  continues  his  di.'^ 
course  in  this  ;  and  of  no  other  covenant  is  there  any 
mention  made  throughout  this  epistle.  Tlie  bond  wo- 
man i-epreserj:ed  the  covenant  at  mount  Sinai,  which  is 
cdLiX.  out  and TOolished.  But  the  free  v.oman represented 


(     22     ) 

the  gracious  covenant  of  promise,  according  to  which 
Isaac  was  born,  and  became  an  heir  of  the  blessing. — ■■ 
This  covenant  is  not  cast  out,  is  not  abolished  ;  but  still 
continues  in  all  its  vigor,  and  in  all  its  glory.  So  theiiy 
hrethren^  concludes  the  apostle,  ive  are  not  children  of 
the  bond  ivoman^  but  of  the  free.  We  are  not  children 
of  the  covenant  made  at  Sinai,  and  allegorically  repre- 
sented by  Hagar,  the  bond  woman ;  but  we  are  children 
of  the  covenant,  originally  established  with  Abraham  and 
his  seed,  and  allegorically  represented  by  Sarah,  the  free 
woman.* 

So  plain  from  the  scriptures  it  is,  that  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham  is  continued  under  the  gospel;  and 
therefore,  that  the  church  formed  by  it  is  also  still  con- 
tinued. 

4.  The  church  under  the  gospel  is  uniformly  in  the 
scriptures  represented  as  being  the  same  church,  or  a 
continuation  of  the  same  church,  which  was  fprmed  in 
<he  family  of  Abraham, 

It  would  he  very  remarkable,  indeed,  if  this  were  not 


*  It  is  often  represented^  that  the  believers  in  the  Abraharnic 
covenant  are  adherents  to  the  law  of  Moses.  Such  a  represen- 
tation has  no  shadow  •>!'  foundation  in  truth.  Tlie  law  of  Moses, 
we,  as  well  as  cur  opponents,  believe,  has  been  blotted  out  and 
nailed  to  the  cross.  But  because  the  Mosaic  law,  the  covenant 
made  with  Israel  at  Sinai,  is  abolished,  it  by  no  means  follows, 
that  the  Abraharnic  covenant  is  also  abolished.  Between  these 
two  covenants  the  scripture  uniformly  observes  a  most  important 
distinction  ;  and  wh;le  it  informs  us  that  the  former  is  abolished, 
it  informs  us  also,  and  with  equal  clearness,  that  the  latter  is  not. 
The  unscriptural  blending  of  these  two  covenant,  together  has 
been  a  most  prolific  source  of  error.  From  this  source  sprang 
the  error  of  the  legal  JewG,  in  former  ages  ;  and  from  this  sani^ 
source  has  sprung  the  error  of  the  deniers  of  the  Abi-ahamic 
.covenant  and  church,  or  the  Antipxdobaptists,  in  modern  times. 
It  was  with  his  eye  upon  this  source  of  error,  that  our  Lord, 
when,  in  discourse  with  the  Jews,  he  took  occasion  to  mention 
circumcision.^  the  original  seal  of  the  Abraharnic  covenant,  was 
particular  to  remind  theni,  that  /.'  ivas  not  of  Moses,  but  of 
THE  FATHKas.     John  vii.  22. 


(     23     ) 

the  case.  It  would  be  very  remarkable'  indeed,  if,  in 
the  scriptures,  Abraham  and  his  seed  were  represented 
as  making  two,  or  more,  distinct  and  quite  different  fam- 
ilies ;  or  if  the  children  of  Abraham,  under  the  gospel, 
who  are  only  heirs  according  to  the  promise  made  to  him, 
were  represented  as  composing  a  church,  entirely  dis- 
tinct and  different  from  that  which  was  founded  in  the 
family  of  their  father.  But  such  a  representation  is,  in 
the  scriptures,  no  where  to  be  found. 

All  the  predictions  and  prophecies  of  good  things  to 
tome,  addressed,  in  the  Psalms  and  in  the  Prophets,  to 
the  church  under  the  former  dispensation,  but  to  have 
their  completion  under  the  gospel,  most  clearly  represent 
the  Christian,  as  being  orJy  a  continuation  and  enlarge- 
ment of  the  ancient  Abrahamic,  church.  Of  innumerable 
passages  to  this  effect,  the  sixtieth  chapter  of  Isaiah, 
thev/hole  of  which  is  in  point,  but  a  part  of  which  only 
can  be  cited,  may  suffice  as  a  specimen.  Arise^  shine; 
Jor  THY  light  is  come^  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  risen 
7//>on  TMEE.  And  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to  thy  light, 
a7id  kijigs  to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising.  Lift  up  thine 
eyes  round  about ^  and  see  ;  all  they  gather  themselves  to- 
gether^ they  come  to  thee  ;  thy  sons  shall  come  from  far, 
and  thy  daughters  shall  be  nursed  at  thy  side.  The  abun- 
dance of  the  sea  shall  be  converted  unto  tvl^t.,  the  forces 
of  the  Gentiles  shall  come  unto  thee.  They  shall  come  up 
xvith  acceptance  upon  mine  altar,  and  I  will  glorify  the 
house  of  my  glory.  The  sons  also  of  them  that  afflicted 
thee  shall  come  bending  unto  thee,  and  all  they  that  des- 
pised thee  shall  bcav  themselves  dozen  at  the  soles  of  thy 
fset ;  and  they  shall  ccdl  thee  the  zion  or  the  lord 
OF  hosts.  Whereas  thou  hast  been  forsaken  and  hated 
so  that  no  man  ruent  through  thee^  I zvi  11  make  thee,  ah 
eternal  excellency,  a  Joy  of  many  generations. — 
These  gracious  promises  were  addressed  to  Zion,  to  the 
church  of  the  living  God,   under  the  ancient  dispensa- 


(     24 


; 


tion,  about  seven  hundred  years  before  the  coming  of 
Messiah  ;  but  they  evidently  look  forvv-ard  to  the  bright 
and  glorious  days,  yea,  even  to  the  brightest  and  most 
glorious  daj'-s,  of  the  gospel.  To  this  same  Zion  assur- 
ances were  given,  that  her  light  should  come,  and  the 
glory  of  the  Lord  should  rise  upon  her.  That  the  Gen- 
tiles should  come  to  her  light,  and  kings  to  the  bright- 
ness of  HER  rising.  That  the  abundance  of  the  sea 
should  be  converted  unto  her,  and  the  forces  of  the  Gen- 
tiles come  unto  her.  That  she  should  be  called  the 
Zion  of  the  Lord  of  hosts;  and  that  she  should  be  made 
an  ETER>rAL  excellency,  a  joy  of  many  generations* 

Can  vv'c  refrain  from  f{stonishment,my  brethren,  when 
we  hear  it  said,  that  this  ancient  church  of  God,  this 
Zion  of  the  Lord  of  hosts,  concerning  Avhich  such  glo- 
rious things  are  spoken,  was  no  church,  or  at  best,  was 
only  a  shadow  or  type  of  the  Christian  church  ?  Can 
we  refrain  from  astonishment,  when  we  hear  it  said,  that 
this  same  Zion,  which  was  to  be  made  an  eternal  excel- 
lency, the  jo}^  of  many  generations,  and  unto  which  the 
forces  of  the  Gentiles  were  to  come,  has  long  since  ceased 
to'  exist,  and  given  place  to  an  entirely  new  church  ?  Is 
it  not  certain,  beyond  all  contradiction,  that,  if  there  be 
no  failure  in  the  promises  of  God,  the  ancient  Zion  still 
exists,  and  has  been  enlarged  by  accessions  from  the 
Gentile  nations  ;  and  will  continue  to  exist  and  to  be  en- 
larged, until  every  nation  and  kingdom,  which  will  not 
serve  her,  shall  have  utterly  perished  ?  And  is  it  not 
equailv  certain,  tiTfat  if  there  has  been  any  other  church 
formed,  under  whatever  name,  and  with  whatever  pi-e- 
tensions  ;  it  is  a  church  which  Vv^as  entirely  unknown  in 
ancient  prophecy  as  a  true  church  of  God,  and  which 
must  ere  long  come  to  a  perpetual  end  ? 

The  representations  In  the  new  testament,  concerning 
the  church,  ni'e  perfectly  correspondent  with  those  in  thr^ 
old. 


C   ^s    ) 

Not  as  though  the  xvord  of  God^  says  the  apostle,  had 
taken  none  effect.  For  they  are  not  all  Israel  who  are  of 
Israel ;  neither  because  they  are  the  seed  of  Abraha7n  are 
they  all  children ;  but  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called. 
That  isy  theyzvhich  are  the  children  of  the  fleshy  these  are 
not  the  children  of  God;  bid  the  children  of  the  promise 
are  counted  for  the  seed.  Know  ye  nof,  therefore^  that 
they  which  are  of  faith.,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham. And  if  ye  he  Christ's.,  then  are  ye  AbrahantCs  seedy 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.^  From  these  pas- 
sages, and  many  others  of  similar  import,  it  appears, 
that  believing  Gentiles,  as  well  as  believing  Jews,  are  the 
covenant  seed  of  Abraham,  and  members  of  the  same 
church  of  which  he  was  the  father. 

/  say^  then.,  hath  God  cast  away  his  people  ?  God  for- 
hid.  For  I  also  am  an  Israelite  of  the  seed  of  Abraham. 
God  hath  not  castaway  his  people.,  whom  he  foreknew. 
Blindness  in  port  i*, -indeed,  happened  u7ito  Israel.,  until 
thefidness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in.  But  if  some  of  the 
branches  be  broken  off.,  and  thou  being  a  tvild  olive  tree^ 
xvert  grafted  in  among  them.,  and  with  them  partakest.of 
the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree ;  boast  not  agaitist 
the  branches ;  but  if  thou  boast.,  thou  bearest  not  tJie 
root.,  hut  the  root  thee.\  In  the  eleventh  of  Jeremiah 
the  Jewish,  or  Abrahamic,  church  is  called  a  green  olive 
tree.,  fair  and  of  goodly  fruit ;  and  under  this  beautiful 
figure  is  it  represented  by  the  apostle,  in  the  passage  now 
cited  from  the  eleventh  of  Romans.  This  good  olive 
tree,  according  to  the  apostle's  representation,  did  not 
die,  on  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  dispensation  ;  but 
still  had  root,  and  life,  and  fatness.  But  some  of  the  na- 
tural brances,  a  great  proportion,  indeed,  of  the  Jews, 
visible  members  of  the  church,  natural  branches  of  the 
olive  tree,  were,  by  reason  of  unbelief,  at  that  time  bro- 

*  Romans  ix.  6 — 8.     Context  and  Text. 
t  RoraanB  xi.  1,  2,  25  ;  17,  18. 

D 


(     26     ) 

ken  off;  and  the  Gentile  belkyers  were  grafted  in  among- 
the  still  remaining  natural  and  flourishing  branches  of 
the  same  olive  tree,  and  became  partakers  of  its  root 
and  fatness. 

This,  my  brethren,  is  far  from  representing  the  an.- 
cient  Abrahamic  church  as  abolished,  and  a  new  church, 
formed.  It,  indeed,  represents,  in  a  manner  at  once  the 
most  beautiful  and  the  most  striking,  that  the  Abrahamic 
church  was  continued  in  its  true  character ;  and  that  the 
Gentile  believers  were  brought  into  the  same  church, 
and  admitfcd  to  a  participation  of  the  same  privileges 
and  blessings.  And,  what  is  particularly  noticeable,  the 
Gentile  believers  are  solemnly  cautioned  against  thinking 
/too  meanly  of  the  Jews,  and  too  highly  of  themselves  ; 
and  are  admonished  to  bear  it  in  remembrance,  that  they, 
by  special  favor,  were  admitted  to  the  privileges  and 
blessings  of  that  covenant  and  church,  from  which  the 
unbelieving  Jews  were  broken  off.    Boast  not  against 

THE  BRANCHES  ;  BUT  IF  THOU  BOAST,  THOU  BEAREST 
NOT  THE  ROOT,  BUT  THE  ROOT  THEE.       Thou  COntribut- 

cst  nothing  to  Abraham  and  his  descendants,  but  dcrivcst 
all  thy  privileges  and  blessings  from  the  covenant  which 
was  made  with  them  I* 

The  apostle  proceeds  to  inform  us,  that  the  Abraham- 
ic church,  thus  continued  down,  and  enlarged  by  the  ac- 

*  It  is  here  submitted  to  the  serious  and  candid  consideration 
lion  of  the  reader,  whether  those  who  deny,  or  disclaim,  the  Abra- 
hamic covenant  and  church,  are  not  chargeable  with  the  veiy 
thing,  agamst  which  the  apostle  has  entered  his  most  solemn  and 
pointed  "premonition  J  Do  they  not  boast  against  the  bra^ichts  ? 
Do  thev  not  boast,  and  claim  a  high  preeminence  indeed,  over 
the  whole  ancient  church,  both  branch  and  root ;  and  over  all  the 
gospel  branches,  which  acknowledge  that  church,  as  the  stock 
into  which  they  are  engrafted,  ^  and  of  the  root  and  fatness  of 
-which  they  have  the  privilege  to  partake  ?  And  if  so,  does  it  not 
behove  them  to  attend,  with  awe,  to  the  warning  which  the 
apostle  subjoins  :  Be  not  high  minded^  but  fear.  For  if  God 
afiared  not  the  natural  branches,  take  heed  lest  he  alu'i  f-Jwrc  nO' 
thee. 


(     27     ) 

cession  of  the  Gentile  believers,  is  to  continue  until  the 
fulness  of  the  Gentiles  shall  have  come  in.  Then  the 
natural  branches  shall  be  engrafted  again  into  their  o^A•n 
olive  tree.  The  Jews  shall  be  reinstated  in  the  church, 
and  in  all  the  privileges  of  the  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham their  father. 

So  plain  it  is,  that  the  church  under  the  Christian 
dispensation,  is  only  the  ancient,  Abrahamic,  church  con- 
tinued and  enlarged  according  to  the  promises,  made  to 
Abraham  and  his  seed ;  and  that  this  church,  and,  of 
course,  the  covenant  by  which  it  vras  originally  formed, 
is  to  be  continued  down  to  the  latest  generations.  So 
plain  it  is,  that,  as  the  apostle  to  the  Ephesians  expresses 
it,  the  Gentiles  arefelloio  heirs^  A^'D  of  the  same  body, 
and  partakers  of  his  promise  in  Christ  by  the  Gospel.^' 
Accordingly,  as  intimated  under  the  former  article,  in 
all  the  predictions  and  promises,  uttered  by  the  prophets, 
concerning  the  extension  and  blessings  of  Messiah's 
kingdom  under  the  gospel ;  this  kingdom  is  designated 
by  the  names  Jacob,  Israel,  Zion,  Jerusalem,  the 
well  kno^vn  names  of  the  ancient  Jewish,  or  Abrahamic, 
ehurch. 

5.  The  covenant,  made  with  Abraham,  is  expressh- 
declared  to  be  an  everlasting,  or  perpetual  covenant ;  a 
covenant  to  continue  to  the  latest  generations. 

And  I  will  establish  rmj  covenaJit  between  me  and  thce^ 
a)\dthij  seed  after  thee.,  in  their  gejierations.,  for  an  ev- 
erlasting covenant,  to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy 
seed  after  thee.  It  is  well  understood,  that  the  term, 
everlasting,  v.'hen  used  in  a  limited  sense,  imports  a 
duration,  equal  to  that  of  the  subject,  to  which  it  is  ap- 
plied. When  the  Lord,  therefore,  testified,  that  he 
would  establish  his  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed 

*  Eph,  jii.  6. 


*  (     28     ) 

after  him,  for  an  everlasting  covenant  ;  he  was, 
doubtless,  understood  to  mean,  that,  as  long  as  Abiaham 
should  have  a  seed  on  the  earth,  this  covenant  should 
continue.  That  he  was  thus  to  be  understood  is  further 
manifest,  from  the  very  noticeable  phrase,  in  their  gen- 
erations. I  will  establish  my  covenant  between  me  and 
thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee^  in  their  generations, 
FOR  an  everlasting  COVENANT.  This  certainly  im- 
ports that  the  covenant  was  to  continue,  even  to  the  latest 
generations  of  Abraham's  seed. 

But  it  already  appears,  that  in  some  sense,  and  that 
too  the  covenant  sense  of  the  terms,  believers  of  every 
nation  and  of  every  age,  as  well  as  his  natural  posterity, 
are  Abraham's  seed.  If,  therefore,  God  meant  to  es- 
tablish his  covenant  with  Abraham  and  with  his  seed  af- 
ter him,  in  their  generations  for  ah  everlasting  covenant ; 
then,  according  to  the  very  terms  of  the  covenant,  as  long 
as  there  is  a  generation  of  Abraham's  seed  on  the  earth,, 
this  covenant  is  to  continue.  If  there  were  in  the  apos- 
tolic age,  true  believers  in  Christ,  they  were  a  generation 
of  Abraham's  seed  J  and  the  covenant  established  with 
Abraham  and  with  his  seed  after  him,  in  their  genera- 
tions, for  an  everlasting  covenant,  was  established  with 
them.  If  there  be  in  the  present  age  true  believers  in 
Christ,  they  are  a  generation  of  Abraham's  seed  ;  and 
the  covenant  established  with  Abraham  and  with  his 
seed  after  him,  in  their  generations,  is  established  with 
them.  And  if  there  shall  be  in  the  last  age  of  the  world 
trvie  believers  in  Christ,  they  will  be  a  generation  of 
Abraham's  seed  ;  and  the  covenant  established  with  A- 
braham  and  with  his  seed  aftei*  him,  in  their  generations, 
for  an  everlasting  covenant,  Avill  be  established  with 
them. 

The  text  now  before  us  is  not  the  only  one,  in  which  the 
govcnant  with  Abraham  is  declared  to  be  an  everlasting 


(     29     ) 

covenant.  Sarah  thy  tvifcy  said  the  Lord  to  Abraham, 
shall  have  a  son,  atid  thou  shalt  call  his  name  Isaac  ;  and 
I xvill establish  my  covenant uuith  him,  for  an  everlast- 
ing COVENANT,  AND  WITH  HIS  SEED  AFTER  HIM.       0  ye 

seed  of  Israel  his  servant,  says  David,  ye  children  of  jfa- 
cob,  his  chosen  07ies.  He  is  the  Lord  our  God.  Hisjudg- 
fiients  are  in  all  the  earth.  Be  ye  mindful  alzuay  of  his 
covenant^  the  word ivhich  he  commanded  to  a  thousand 
GENERATIONS  ;  even  of  the  covenant  which  he  made  with 
Abraham  f  and  of  his  oath  unto  Isaac j  and  hath  confirmed 
the  same  to  Jacob  for  a  lawi^  and  to  Israel  for  an  e  ver- 

J.ASTING  COVENANT.  .  - 

Such,  my  hearers,  is  a  compendious  view  of  the  scrip- 
ture proofs  that  the  covenant,  which  was  made  with  A- 
braham,  and  by  which  the  church  was  constituted  in  his 
family,  was  intended  to  be  perpetual,  or  to  continue 
throughout  all  generations.  I  say,  a  compendious  view, 
for  in  order  to  give  an  ample  and  complete  view,  we 
should  be  obliged  to  present  the  whole  scriptures  in  their 
connexion.  The  whole  scriptures,  in  their  connexion, 
testify,  that  Abraham  is,  under  God,  the  father  of  the 
church  ;  that  to  him  and  his  seed  all  the  promises  were 
made;  that  the  church,  built  on  the  foundation  of  the 
apostles  and  prophets,  is  one  ;  that  the  covenant  confirm- 
ed in  Christ,  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years  before  the  commencement  of  the  Mosaic 
dispensation,  was  never  to  be  disannulled;  and,  there.- 
fore,  that  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then,  by  virtue  of  that  zovt- 
Xi^xaty  ye  are  Abraham^ s  seed,  a7id  heirs  according  to  the 
promise.^     All  this  will,  perhaps,  be  made  to  appear  with 

*  By  some  it  may  be  thought,  that,  on  this  first  general  head, 
T^-e  have  dwelt  longer  than  was  necessary  on  a  proposition  so 
rslain.  But  wlien  it  is  considered,  that  the  doctrine  here  in  proof 
is  at  the  foundation  of  the  dispute  between  the  paidobaptists  and 
the  antipaedobaptists,  and  that,  if  this  doctrine  be  proved,  the 
pxdobaptist  sentiment  and  practice  must  be  allowed  to  rest  on 
the  most  solid  ground  ;  it  is  hoped  that  the  several   arguments 


(     30     ). 

Still  greater  clearness,  by  what  is  to  be  offeree^  under  the 
other  general  head  ;  which  is, 

II.  To  consider  more  particularly  what  provision  was 
made  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  for  the  continuance  of 
the  church  formed  by  it,  and  the  transmission  of  the  bles- 
sings contained  in  it. 

God's  gracious  promise  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and 
his  seed  after  him,  in  their  generations,  evidently  pur- 
ported, that  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  should  be 
transmitted  from  Abraham  to  Isaac,  from  Isaac  to  Jacob, 
and  so  down  from  generation  to  generation,  in  the  line 
of  natural  descent.  That  this  great  promise  had  prima- 
ry respect  to  Abraham's  natural  posterity  is  manifest 
from  the  very  terms  in  which  it  is  expressed ;  from  the 
application  of  the  token  or  seal  of  the  covenant ;  from 
the  general  tenor  of  the  scriptures  ;  and  from  the  well 
known  course  of  the  divine  dispensations. 

The  covenant  with  Abraham  contained  the  promise  of 
the  life  that  now  is,  as  well  as  of  that  which  is  to  come. 
As  a  provision  for  the  life  which  now  is,  and  as  an  earnest, 
©f  the  blessings  of  that  which  is  to  come,  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan was  particularly  promised  to  him  and  his  seed  for 
an  inheritance.  As  the  land  of  Canaan  was  a  pledge, 
and  an  earnest  of  that  better  country,  which  is  an  hea- 
venly, and  of  all  the  blessings  promised  in  the  covenant ; 
it  is  in  several  instances,  by  a  common  and  beautiful 
figure,  put  for  the  whole  of  those  blessings.  But  the 
promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan  had  respect,  unquestiona- 
bly, to  Abraham's  natural  seed  ;  and,  therefore,  as  God 
promised  to  be  a  God  to  that  same   seed,  to  which  he 

adduced,  will  not  only  be  read  once^  but  if  necessary  will  be  pa- 
tiently and  candidly  revienvsd^  before  the  reader  proceeds  any 
further.  Are  not  the  arguments  scriptural  and  fair  ?  Is  not 
each  of  them  by  itself  conclusive  ?  And  do  not  all  of  them  to- 
gether establish  the  doctrine  beyond  all  reasonable  controversy  ? 


C     31      ) 

ffould  give  the  land  of  Canaan,  it  is  plain  that  all  the 
promises  of  the  covenant  had  primary  respect  to  Abra- 
ham's natural  descendants.  Ixvill give  unto  thee^andto 
THY  SEED  after  thee,  all  the  Itnd  of  Canaan,  and  Ixvill  be 
THEIR  God.* 

Circumcision,  originally  the  token  and  seal  of  the  co- 
venant, was,  by  divine  appointment,  put  upon  Abraham^^s 
natural  seed.  But  why  was  the  token  and  seal  of  the 
covenant  put  upon  them  ;  if  to  them  the  promise  of  the 
covenant  had  no  primary,  no  special  respect  ? 

The  apostle  Peter,  in  his  before  cited  address  to  the 
people,  at  the  Beautiful  gate  of  the  temple,  says,  Te  are 
the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  or  the  covenant  tt'/^ic)^ 
Cod  made  xuith  our  fathers  ;  saying,  unto  Abraham,  And 
in  thif  seed  shall  all  the  yiations  of  the  earth  be  blessed* 
Unt0  YOU  FIRST,  God,  having  raised  up  his  Son  ^esus, 
sent  him  to  bless  tjou  in  turning  axvay  every  one  of  you 
from  his  iniquities.  Thus,  addressing  himself  to  a  pro- 
miscuous multitude  of  the  natural  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham, the  apostle  testified  to  them,  that  they  were  the* 
children  of  the  covenant ;  and  that,  on  this  account,  unto 
them  first  God  had  sent  his  Son  Jesus  to  bless  them. 
This  plainly  imports  that  the  promises  of  the  covenant, 
even  the  promises  of  spiritual  blessings  had  primary  res- 
pect to  Abraham's  natural  posterity.  Paul,  in  the  ninth 
of  Romans,  says,  I  could  xvish  that  myself  -were  accursed 
from  Christ,  for  my  brethren,  my  kinsmen  accord- 
ing TO  the  flesh.  who  are  ISRAELITES  ;  TO  WHOM 
PERTAINETH  the  ADOPTION,  AND  THE  GLORY,  AND  THE 
COVENANTS,    AND  THE    PROMISES.       But    hoW     COuld    hc 

thus  say,  if  the  promises  of  the  covenant  had  not  a  pri- 
mary respect  to  Abraham's  natural  posterity  ?  It  is,  in- 
deed, on  the  ground,  that  the  promises  of  the  covenant 

*  Cren.  xvii.  8. 


C     32     ) 

hful  a  primary  respect  to  Abraham's  natural  posterity, 
that  the  apostle's  whole  argument,  throughout  this  and 
the  two  succeeding  chapters,  evidently  proceetis.  But 
the  passage  in  the  eleventh  chapter,  respecting  the  olive 
tree,  is  peculiarly  clear  and  decisive.  In  that  passage 
the  Jews  are  represented  as  being  natural  branches  of 
the  good  olive  tree,  and  the  Gentile  believers  as  only 
ENGRAFTED  hrauches-  But  what  pertinency  or  justness 
could  there  be  in  this  representation,  if  the  covenant 
with  Abraham  had  no  special,  no  primary  respect  to  his 
natural  descendants  ? 

As  the  sentiment,  now  in  proof,  runs  through  the 
whole  scriptures  ;  so  it  is  most  strongly  confirmed  bj 
the  divine  dispensations.  For  nearly  two  thousand  years, 
the  blessings  of  the  covenant,  transmitted  from  genera- 
tion to  generation,  were  almost  wholly  confined  to  Abra- 
ham's natural  seed.  To  them  God  said,  Tou  only  Have 
J  hioxvn  of  all  the  natio7is  of  the  earth.  Though,  at  the 
time  of  the  introduction  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  a 
great  proportion  of  the  natural  branches  were  broken  off" 
from  the  good  olive  tree  ;  yet  there  was  still  a  precious 
remnant  spared.  Though  blindness  hi  part  is  happened 
to  Israel,  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  cotne  in  ; 
though,  as  concerning  the  gospel,  they  are  enemies  for  the 
Gentiles^  sakes ;  yet,  as  touching  the  election,  they  are  still 
beloved  for  the  fathers^  sakes.  And  the  time  is  at  hand, 
when  as  a  body,  they  are  to  be  brought  into  the  faith  of 
the  gospel,  and  reinstated  in  all  the  privileges  of  thq 
everlasting  covenant.* 

God's  promise,  then,  or  proposal,  to  Abraham,  was  to 
be  a  God,  not  only  to  him,  but  also  to  his  seed  after  him. 

The  same  was  his  promise,  or  proposal,  to  Isaac ;  the 
same,  to  Jacob  j  and  so  down  from  generation  to  gene- 


*  Rom,  xj.  23—3?. 


(     33     ) 

ration  ;  ahd  thus  in  the  line  of  natural  descent,  were  the 
blessings  of  the  covenant  to  be  transmitted  and  the 
church  continued. 

But  though  the  promise  of  the  covenant  had  primary 
respect  to  Abraham's  natural  posterity ;  yet  Abraham 
was  made  the  father  of  many  nations  ;  and  had  the  prom- 
ise, that  in  him,  and  in  his  seed,  all  the  families  of  the 
earth  should  be  blessed.  Though  the  church  was  to  be 
continued  down  in  the  line  of  his  natural  descendents  ; 
yet  provision  was  made  for  the  adoption  and  incorpora- 
tion of  other  families  and  nations.  Accordingly,  under 
the  former  dispensation,  strangers  of  difFex-ent  nations 
were  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  natural  born  Israelites  ; 
and  on  the  introduction  of  the  present  dispensation,  Gen- 
tile believers,  by  hundreds  and  by  thousands,  were  ad- 
mitted to  the  same  covenant,  and  became  fellow  heirs  of 
the  same  body,  and  partakers  of  the  same  promise  by  the 
gospet. 

As  Abrahani  Was  constituted  the  father  of  all  them, 
that  believe  ;  so,  correlatively,  believers  of  every  nation 
and  age,  though  not  his  natural,  are  yet  his  adopted  and 
covenant  children ;  and  as  such  are  to  be  admitted  to  all 
the  privileges  and  blessings  of  his  natural  children  of 
promise.  As,  therefore,  God  promised,  or  proposed,  to 
Abraham  to  be  not  only  his  God,  but  also  the  God  of  his 
seed ;  so  he  now  promises,  or  proposes,  to  every  be- 
lieving parent  to  be,  not  only  a  God  to  him,  but  also  to 
his  seed  after  him  ;  and  the  same  promise,  or  proposal, 
to  believing  parents  is  to  continue  down  from  generation 
to  generation,  to  the  latest  periods.  Accordingly,  Pe- 
ter, when  addressing  the  mixed  multitude,  who  on  the 
day  of  pentecost  were  pricked  in  their  hearts,  called 
upon  them  to  repent  and  be  baptized;  and  that  he  might 
pifesent  the  strongest  motive,  he  added,  For  the  projnise 
E 


(     34     ) 

is  to  z/oz^AND  TO  YOUR  CHILDREN,  and  to  all  that  are  ofay 
off^even  to  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call. 

But  it  is  here,  my  brethren,  to  be^ particularly  noted, 
that  the  promises  of  the  covenant,  though  in  respect  to 
Christ  and  his  church,  as  a  body,  absolute  ;  yet  in 
respect  to  individual  persons,  are  conditional.  It  was 
on  the  ground  of  Abraham's  faith  and  uprightness,  that 
God  promised  to  be  a  God  to  him  ;  and  it  was  on  the 
same  general  ground,  that  he  promised  to  be  a  God  to 
his  seed.  Walk  before  me^  said  God  to  Abraham,  and  be 
thou  perfect ;  and  Ixvillmakemy  covenant  between  me  and 
thee.^  To  become  entitled,  then,  to  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant,  Abraham  must  walk  before  God,  and  be  per- 
fect i  must  have  true  faith,  and  be  sincerely  obedient. 
This  was  necessary,  as  it  respected  himself  personally, 
and  equally  necessary,  as  it  respected  his  children. 

The  promise  to  be  a  God  to  his  childieA,  was  not  in 
such  a  sense  absolute,  as  that  God  was  engaged  to  be 
their  God,  whether  Abraham  believingly  took  hold  of 
the  promise,  and  was  faithful  in  respect  to  it  or  not :  but 
if  Abraham  vrould  become  entitled  to  the  promise,  he 
must  believe  in  it,  and  practise  in  conformity  to  it.-^ — 
Hence,  God  said  of  Abraham,  /  know  hhn^  that  he  will 
eornmand  his  children^  and  his  household  after  him;  and 
they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lordto  do  justice  and  judg- 
ment ;  that  the  Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham  that  rvhich 
he  hath  spoke?!  ofhim.j  it  was  on  the  ground  of  Abra- 
ham's knov.'n  fidelity,  that  God  thus  testified  concerning- 
his  children,  that  they  should  keep  the  xvay  of  the  Lord, 
and  that  the  blessings  promised  to  Abraham  should 
come  upon  him.  Agreeably  to  this,  God  said  to  Isaac, 
Izvill  be  xvith  thee,  and  will  bless  thee  ;  and  I  xvill perform 
the  oath  xvhich  I  sxvarc  imto  Abraham  thy  father  ;  and  I 
xvill  make  thy  seed  to  tnidiiply  as  the  stars  of  heaven  ;  and 

*  Gen.  xvii.  1,  2.         jlbid.  xviii.  ]P. 


(     35     ) 

ivill  give  unto  thy  seed  all  these  countries^  and  in  thy  seed 
shall  all  the  natioiis  of  thb  earth  be  blessed.  Because 
THAT  Abraham  obeyed  my   voice,    and    kept  my 

CHARGE,  MY    COMMANDMENTS,    MY    STATUTES,    AND   MY 

LAWS.*  From  this  it  Is  plain,  that  it  was  in  conse- 
quence of  Abraham's  faith  and  fidelity,  that  God  Avas  a 
God  to  Isaac  and  established  with  him  his  covenant. 

In  the  ninth  of  Romans,  the  apostle  anticipates  an 
objection  to  this  effect,  that  if  God  should  reject  the  na- 
tion of  the  Jews,  as  had  before  been  intimated,  he  would 
not  be  faithful  to  his  covenant  with  Abraham,  respecting 
his  seed.  To  obviate  this  objection,  he  says.  They  are 
7iot  all  Israel^  who  are  of  Israel ;  neither  because  they  are 
the  seed  of  Abraham  are  they  all  children.  There  are 
many  of  Abraham's  descendants,who,thGugh  members  of 
the  visible  church,  are  not  the  true  people  of  God ;  and 
there  are  many  of  Abraham's  seed,  who,  tliough  visibly 
Children  of  the  covenant,  are  not  partakers  of  covenant 
blessings.  For  they  xvhich  are  the  children  of  the  fleshy 
vncxely^  are  not  the  children  of  God ;  but  the  children 
,0F  THE  promise,  the  children  in  respect  to  v/hom  th^re 
is  that  faith  and  fidelity,  which  are  the  conditions  of  the 
promise,  are  counted  tor  the  sekd.j  From  this  pas- 
sage it  is,  on  the  one  hand,  plain,  that  the  promise  to  be 
a  God  to  Abraham,  and  to  his  seed  after  him,  had  res- 
pect, primarily,  to  his  natural  descendants  ,;  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  equally  plain,  that  merely  their  being  the 
natural  descendants  of  Abraham,  did  not  bring  then. 
within  the  promise.  To  be  children  of  the  promise,  thev 
must  be  children  of  faith  ;    children,    concerning  whom 

*  Gen.  j'xv,  3,  4,  5. 

t  Rora.  ix.  6,  7,  8.  This  passage  thongli  by  some  Lhought  to 
militate  with  our  sentiments  respecting  the  covenant,  the  autlior 
canrjot  bnt  consider  as  absokitcly  conclusive  in  favor  of  them. 
Ifthere  he  no  promise  to  believing  parents  respecting  their  chil- 
dren ;  -what  then  are  we  to  understand  by  cniLi)R;vN  of  the 
''RO?JISK  ? 


(     36     ) 

there  is  on  the  part  of  the  parent,  or  parents,  the  faith 
of  Abraham  in  the  covenant  of  God. 

The  promise,  then,  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham,  and  to 
his  seed  after  him,  was  of  this  purport,  that  on  condition 
of  faith  and  fidelity  on  Abraham's  part,  in  respect  to  his 
children,  they  should  become  subjects  of  grace,  and  heirs 
of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant.  The  same  promise  was 
made  to  Abraham's  posterity  in  their  successive  genr 
erations  ;  and  the  same  is  now  made  to  all  true  believers, 
his  adopted  children,  of  every  nation.  This  is  a  special 
and  most  important  provision,  of  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
pant,  for  the  transmission  of  the  blessings  contained  in 
it,  and  the  continuance  of  the  church  formed  by  it. 

It  is  further  to  be  observed,  however,  that  as  Christ 
is  eminently  the  seed  of  Abraham,  and  as  Abraham,  at 
the  time  the  covenant  was  made  with  him,  represented 
the  whole  church  ;  the  promise  of  the  covenant  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed  had  respect  not  jnerely  to  indiyiduals, 
but  also  to  Christ  as  the  Mediator  of  the  covenant,  and 
to  the  whole  church  as  one  in  and  with  him.  Hence, 
though  in  one  respect  the  promises  of  the  covenant  are 
conditional }  yet  in  another  respect  they  are  not.  Though 
in  respect  to  individual  believers,  the  promises  are  not 
absolute,  but  have  respect  to  their  faith  and  fidelity  as  a 
condition ;  yet  in  respect  to  Christ,  and  the  Church  as  one 
with  him,  the  promises  are  yea  and  amen.  Though  God 
is  not  by  his  covenant,  absolutely  engaged  to  give  to  every 
believer  that  faith  in  the  promises  respecting  hi§  chil- 
dren, which  will  certainly,  through  grace,  secure  to  his 
children,  and  all  of  them,  the  blessings  of  the  covenant ; 
yet  he  does,  it  is  conceived,  stand  absolutely  engaged, 
to  Christ  and  the  church,  to  give  such  a  measure  of  grace 
and  faith  as  shall  preserve  in  the  line  of  the  church,  or 
some  part  of  the  church,  a  righteous  seed  on  the  earth. 
4s  for  mf,  this  iajny  covenant  ivith  them^  sait/i  the  Lord ; 


(    sr    ) 

my  spirit  that  is  upon  thee^  ayid  mywords  that  I  have  put 
hi  thy  mouthy  shall  riot  depart  out  of  thy  mouthy  nor  out  of 
the  mouth  of  thy  seed,  nor  out  of  the  rnoicth  of  thy  seeds 
seed,  saith  the  Lord,  from  henceforth  and  forever.  They 
shall  not  labor  in  vain,  nor  bring  forth  for  trouble  ;  for 
they  are  the  seed  of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord  and  their  off- 
spring "with  them.  I xdiU pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed^ 
and  my  blessing  upon  their  offspring.  And  they  shall 
spring  up  as  among  the  grass,  as  willows  by  the  zvater 
courses.  One  shall  say,  I  am  the  Lcrd''s,  and  another 
shall  subscribe  zvith  his  hand  unto  the  Lord  ajid  surname 
himself  hij  the  name  of  Israel.  They  shall  be  my  people 
and  I  will  be  their  God.  And  I  will  give  them  one  heart 
wid  one  way,  that  they  may  fear  me  forever,  for  the 
GOOD  of  them  andofrnzm  children  after  them.  These, 
my  brethren,  are  covenant  promises,  made  in  Christ  to 
the  Abrahamic  church  ;  and  are  only  an  exposition,  or  a 
more  clear  and  particular  expression  of  the  great  prom- 
ises originally  made  xo  Abraliam  and  his  seed.  But 
they  give  the  most  positive  assurance  that  the  Lord  will 
always  have  a  faithful  seed  in  the  church  ;  and  that  in 
consequence  of  their  faith  and  fidelity  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  his  gracious  influences,  shall  be  poured  out  upon 
their  children  ;  so  that  there  shall  be  among  them  also  a 
faithful  seed.  And  thus  though  many,  through  unbelief 
and  unfaithfulnes3,  be  cut  off  from  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant ;  yet  in  consequence  of  the  faith  and  fidelity 
of  others,  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  will  be  transmit- 
ted in  the  line  of  the  church  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion, even  unto  the  last. 

The  provision,  then,  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  for 
the  transmission  of  its  blessings,  and  the  continuance  of 
the  church,  was  a  promise  to  Abraham,  and  to  all  be- 
lieving parents  individually,  on  condition  of  their  faith 
and  fidelity,  of  renewing  grace,  and  all  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant,  to  their  children;    and  a  promise  to  Abraliani 


(      38      ) 

and  his  seed,  comprising  Christ  and  his  church  in  union, 
of  such  a  measure  of  grace  and  faith  as  should  preserve 
in  the  line  of  the  church,  a  holj'  and  faithful  seed  on  the 
earth.  And  to  these  was  annexed  a  promise  that  acces- 
sions of  those,  who  were  strangers  and  foreigners,  should 
from  period  to  period  be  made  to  the  church,  until  the 
abundance  of  the  sea  should  be  converted  unto  her,  the 
forces  of  the  Gentiles  should  come  unto  her,  and  all  flesh 
should  see  the  salvation  of  God. 

I -will  establish  my  covenajit  between  me  and  thee  and 
thy  seed  after  thce^  saith  Jehovah, ybr  an  everlasting  cove- 
nant^ to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee. 
Thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many  ?iations  :  and  in  thee  and 
in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed. 
Accordingly,  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  froyn  the  curse  of 
the  laxv  being  made  a  curse  for  uSy  that  the  blessi?ig  of  A- 
hrahar.i  might  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  fesus  Christ ; 
that  roe  might  receive  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  through 
faith.  There  is  neither  yew  nor  Greek^  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free^  there  is  neither  male  nor  fern  ale  ^  for  ye  are 
all  one  in  Christ  jfesus  ;  and  if  ye  be  Christ^s,  then  are  ye 
AbrahajrCs  seed  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise < 


SERMON  II 


GALATIANS*  HI.  29. 

And  if  ye  be  Christ's,   then  are  ye  Abraham's  Seed,   and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise. 

Jl  HE  doctrine,  my  brethren,  which  was  deduced  from 
this  text,  and  to  establish  and  illustrate  which  was  the 
bvisiness  of  our  former  discourse,  Very  readily  suggests 
many  articles  of  great  practical  importance  ;  some  of 
the  more  prominent  of  which  may  be  selected  for  more 
particular  attention  and 

IMPROVEMENT. 

1.  We  are  led  to  a  grateful  and  devout  contemplation 
of  the  great  design,  the  gradual  progress,  and  the  ulti- 
mate extension  and  glory,  of  the  church  of  God,  origi- 
nally established  in  the  family  of  Abraham^ 

At  a  period  abovit  fifteen  hundred  years  after  the 
creation  of  the  world,  the  Lord  looked  doxvn  fi'om  heaven 
upon  the  earth,  and  behold  it  was  corrupt  ;  for  all  flesh 
had  corrupted  his  xvay  upon  the  earth.  And  the.  Lord  said 
unto  Noah,  the  end  ofallfesh  is  come  before  me  ;  for  the 
earth  is  filled  -with  violence  through  them,  and  behold  I 
xvill  destroy  them  with  the  earth.  Pursuant  to  this  his 
righteous  deterniination,  after  giving  them  solemn  admo- 
nition for  the   space  of  a  hundred  and  twenty  years. 


(     40     ) 

while  the  ark  was  in  building ;  he,  at  length,  opened  the' 
•tvindo-ws  of  heaven^  and  broke   up   the  fountains   of  the 
great  decp^  and  destroyed  the  whole  world  of  the  ungodly 
"with  a  deluge  of  waters.    From  this  memorable  and  aw- 
M  catastrophe  only  Noah  and  his  family  were  saved.- 

With  this  righteous  and  promising  stock  the  worid 
wais  begun  anew.  But  righteous  and  promising  as  the 
stock  was,  such  is  the  hereditary  depravity  of  human  na- 
ture, that  in  about  four  hundred  aftd  thirty  years  after 
the  evacuation  of  the  ark,  idolatry  was  so  extensively 
spread  among  the  descendants  of  Noah',  that  open  defec- 
tion from  the  true  God  and  his  worship  had  biecome  al- 
most universal. 

At  this  important  aera  it  pleased  God,  in  his  infinite 
wisdom  and  mercy,  toreveal  his  gracious  purpose,  which 
he  had  purposed  in  the  Messiah,  to,  prevent  the  utter 
extinction  of  the  true  religion  ;  to  preserve  to  himself  a 
righteous  seed,  and  to  uphold  the  institutions  of  his  wor- 
ship oh  the  earth,  through  all  succeeding  ages,  and  ulti- 
mately to  spread  the  knowledge  and  glory  of  his  name 
to  all  the  ends  of  the  world. 

In  his  wise  and  sovereign  manner,  he  separated  A- 
brahamyrow  his  country^  and  from  his  kindred^  and  from 
his  father^ s  house^  and  led  him  forth  into  a  land  wherein 
he  was  a  stranger.  There  he  appeared  unto  Abraham, 
and  gave  him  renewed  intimations  of  his  gracious  de- 
sign  ;  and,  in  about  twenty  years  afterward,  in  a  formal 
and  solemn  manner,  established  his  covenant  with  him 
and  with  his  seed  after  him,  in  their  generations,  for  aa 
ev'erlasting  covenant.  In  Abraham's  family  he  instituted 
a  visible  church  ;  a  visibly  covenanted  and  sealed  relig- 
ious body  ;  which  was  to  continue  through  all  genera- 
tions, and  ultimately  to  embrace  all  the  families  of  the 
earth.     The  church,  thus  instituted,  he  endowed  with 


(     41     ) 

the  richest  blessings,  temporal,  spiritual,  and  eternal  ; 
blessings  not  all  to  be  conferred  in  their  full  effect  at  once, 
but  successively,  from  period  to  period,  as  best  suited  the 
purposes  of  infinite  wisdom,  yet  all  made  sure  by  promise 
and  by  oath. 

Thus  solemnly  instituted  and  richly  endowed,  the 
church,  under  special  divine  protection  and  guidance, 
commenced  her  progress. 

The  covenant,  made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  was 
renewed  with  Isaac  and  his  seed,  and  confirmed  with 
Jacob  and  his  seed  ;  and  while,  in  succession,  these  ven- 
erable patriarchs,  during  the  space  of  about  two  hundred 
years,  dtvelt  as  strangers  in  a  strange  land.,  and  removed 
from  one  nation  to  another^  and  from  one  kingdom  to  an- 
other people^  the  Lord  suffered  no  man  to  do  them  xurong. 
Tea  he  reproved kin^s  for  their  sakes^  sayings  Touch  not 
mine  anointed,  and  do  my  prophets  no  Harm.  At  length 
Israel  -went  down  into  Egypt.,  and  facob  sojourned  in  the 
land  of  Ham. 

In  Egypt  they  dwelt  for  more  than  two  hundred  years  j 
and  although,  during  a  great  part  of  that  long  and  dreary 
interval,  they  were  greatly  afflicted  and  oppressed,  yet 
the  Lord  re?nembered  his  covenant.,  and  encreased  his 
people  exceedingly y  and  made  them  stronger  than  their  en- 
emies. In  due  time  their  groanings  were  heard,  and  the 
period  of  their  deliverance  came.  The  Lord  sent  Moses 
his  servant y  and  Aaron -whom  he  had  chosen  ;  and  J.hey 
shexved  his  signs  among  the  Egyptians,  and  wonders  in 
the  land  of  Ham,  until  Egypt  was  glad  to  let  his  people 
depart.  Wifh  a  mighty  hand  and  a  stretched  out  arm, 
he  brought  them  forth  from  the  house  of  their  bondage. 
He  spread  a  cloud  for  their  covering,  and  a  fire  to  give 
light  in  the  night.  The  people  a:ked  and  he  brought 
quails;  and  satisfied  them  with  the  bread  of  Heaven.  He 
F 


(      42      ) 

opened  the  rocky  and  the  xvaters  gushed  out  ,•  and  rdn  in 
the  dry  places  like  a  river.  For  he  remembered  his  hoitf 
prcmsie,  cxd  Abraham  his  servant. 

Previously  to  their  leaving  Egypt,  however,  the  Lord 
was  pleased  to  institute  the  passover,  to  be  afterwards 
observed  by  his  people  as  another  sealing  ordinance  of 
his  covenant  with  them.  The  pascal  lamb,  at  once  com- 
memorated the  manner  of  their  signal  deliverance  from 
Egypt,  and  prefigured  the  manner  of  the  great  redemp- 
tion of  the  whole  church,  by  the  one  sacrifice  of  the 
Lamb  of  God. 

At  Mount  Sinai,  the  Lord  appeared  in  terrible  and 
glorious  majesty,  and,  recognizing  the  ransomed  tribes 
as  the  seed  of  Abraham,  renewed  with  them  his  cove- 
nant; and  gave  them  a  code  of  statutes  and  ordinances, 
called  also  a  covenant,  which  were  to  continue  until  Mes- 
siah should  appear,  and  the  ritual  parts  of  which  were 
prefigurative  and  typical  of  good  things  to  come.  Here 
the  tabernacle  was  built,  and  all  the  splendid  rites  of  the 
Mosaic  economy  were  instituted.  Here  the  Lord  taught 
jfacob  his  laio  and  Israel  his  testimonies^.  And  here  he 
gave  to  his  church  a  form,  and  established  in  it  an  order 
and  discipline,  which  were  to  continue  until  that  which 
was  more  perfect  should  come. 

This  was  an  important  sra  of  the  church.  At  thrs 
period  the  great  designs  of  God,  and  the  gracious  prom- 
ises of  his  covenant,  were  much  more  clearly  unfolded, 
than  at  any  former  period  they  had  been  ;  and  his  church 
received  a  very  great  advancement.  This  was  indeed, 
the  commencement  of  a  new  dispensation,  in  many  res- 
pects exceedingly  different  from  the  preceding  ;  but  still 
the  church  was  the  same,  formed  bv  the  same  covenant, 
^nd  continued  in  the  same  liae  of  Abraham's  seed. 


(     43      ) 

After  receiving  the  law,  and  the  splendid  ritual  of  di- 
vine service,  the  church  continued  under  Moses  in  the 
wilderness  for  the  space  of  about  forty  years  ;  removing 
from  place   to  place,  under  the  miraculous  guidance  of 
the  pillar  of  cloud  and  of  fire,  and  miraculously  supported 
from  day  to  day,  by  bread  from  heaven  and  water  from 
the  rock.     For  forty  years   their  raiment  waxed  not  old 
upon  them^  neither  did  their  shoe  wax  old  upon  their  foot. 
During  that  remarkable  period,  they  saw   the  works  of 
the  Lord  who  led  them  about  ojid  instructed  them ;  and 
from  time  to   time   received  from  him,  by  the  hand  of 
Moses  his  servant,  many   important  revelations  of  his 
will.     But  with  mayiy  of  them  God  xvas  not  well  pleased. 
Provoked  by  their  obstinate  perversity  and  unbelief,  he 
sware  in  his  xvrath  that  they  should  not  enter  into  his  rest. 
Yet  though  they  consumed  av/ay  under  his  terrible  mal- 
ediction, and  died  by  hundreds  and  by  thousands,  in  the 
wilderness,  still  he  was  mindful   of  his  covenant.     Tho' 
multitudes  perished  in  unbelief,  God,  nevertheless,  re- 
served to  himself,  even  of  that  generation,  a  faithful 
seed  ;  and  upon  the  generation  then  rising  he  graciously 
granted  a  remarkable  effusion  of  his  Holy  Spirit,  so  that 
Israel  became  holiness  to  the  Lord,  and  the  first  fruits  of 
his  irxr  ease. 

Having  thus,  by  his  various  dispensations,  prepared 
his  church  for  a  settled  state,  the  Lord  led  forth  his  cho- 
sen tribes  out  of  the  great  and  terrible  wilderness^  and 
by  the  hand  of  his  servant  Joshua,  brought  them  into  the 
promised  land.  Nations  greater  and  mightier  than  they 
disappeared  before  them  like  the  mists  of  the  morning ; 
the  land  was  .livided  by  lot ;  the  tabernacle  was  pitched 
at  Shiloh  ;  and  divine  worship  %vas  established  according 
to  its  instituted  forms.  ^ 

Though  nearly  five  hundred  vears  had  elapsed,  after 
che  covenant  v,'as   made   with  Abraham,   before  Abra- 


(     44     ) 

ham's  seed  wer«  put  in  possession  of  tlie  promised  land  ; 
yet  God  was  not  unmindful  of  his  covenant,  neither  was 
he  slack  concerning  his  pramise.  And  as  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan was  intended  to  be  a  sure  pledge,  and  earnest  to  the 
whole  church,  of  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant ;  so, 
though  in  respect  to  the  fulfilment  of  some  of  the  prom- 
ises, the  time  to  us  seem  long ;  still  he  who  hath  prom- 
ised is  faithful  and  will  certainly  perform.  As  certain 
as  it  is  that  he  put  his  ancient  church  in  possession  of  the 
land  of  Canaan,  so  certain  it  is  that  he  will,  in  due  tirne^ 
fulfil  every  promise  of  the  covenant,  and  finally  put  his 
whole  redeemed  church  in  possession  of  that  better  coun- 
try which  is  an  heavenly* 

Thus  settled  in  the  good  land,  which  Go5  had  prom- 
ised unto  their  fathers,  the  church  continued  with  alter- 
nate elevations  and  depressions,  but  without  any  very 
remarkable  advancement,  for  another  long  period  of 
about  four  hundred  years.  But  under  David  and  his 
son  Solomon,  both  eminent  types  of  the  Messiah,  the 
church  attained  to  the  highest  glory,  to  which  it  ever  at- 
tained under  the  Mosaic  dispensation.  The  school  of: 
the  prophets  was  instituted ;  great  additions  were  made 
to  the  written  oracles  of  truth;  a  magnificent  temple  for 
the  divine  honor  and  service  was  built  at  Jerusalem,  the 
city  -which  God  chose  to  piece  his  name  there  ;  several 
important  institutions  for  the  improvement  of  the  divine 
worship  were  added  to  those  given  by  Moses  j  and  the 
promises  and  prophecies  respecting  Messiah  and  hir, 
kingdom  became  much  more  particular  and  clear. 

The  church,  l:owever,  still  continued  the  same,  though 

in  a  very  advanced  state,  and  under  a  very  different  econ- 

^my ;  and  all  the  blessings,  then  actually  enjoyed,  were 

only  bestowed  in  faithful  fulfilment  of  the  covenant  with 

Abraham. 


(     45     ) 

From  the   memorable  and  splendid  period,  now  in 
view,  to  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah,  a  period  of  about 
one  thousand  years,   the   church  passed   through  many- 
interesting,  but  diversified  scenes.     The  division  of  the 
tribes  of  Israel  into  two  distinct  kingdoms  ;  the  general 
apostacies  in  the  days  of  Athaliah,  Ahaz,  and  Manasseh, 
and  the  memorable  reformation  in  the  days  of  Jehosha= 
phat,  Hezekiah,  and  Josiah  ;  the  destruction  of  the  tem- 
ple, the  dispersion  and  captivity^  in  the  days  of  Jehoia- 
chin  and   Zedekiah ;  the   return,  the   rebuilding  of  the 
temple,   and  the  resettlement  of  the  church  and  of  the 
worship  of  God,  in  the  days  of  Zerubbabel,  Ezra,  and 
Nehemiah ;  the   cruel  persecutions  and  oppressions  of 
the  church  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  the  signal 
deliverances  wrought  in  her  behalf  under  Judas  Macca- 
beus and  his  successors  ;  were  all,  as  they  respected  the 
church,  very   memorable,   and  important  events.     But 
low  as  the  church  was  at  several  successive  periods  re- 
duced, yet  she  was  never  destroyed.     God  remembered 
his  covenant  and  was  gracious.     And  if  the  church  was 
not  on  the  whole  in  other  repects  advanced  ;  yet  as  the 
time  of  Messiah  drew  nearer,  the  promises  made  to  the 
fathers,  and  from  time  to   time   renewed  and  repeated, 
were  more  clearly  unfolded,  and  the  scene  of  prophecy 
became  less  shadowy  and  obscure. 

At  length  the  long  predicted,  and  long  expected  aera 
arrived.  All  nations  were  shaken,  and  the  desire  of  all 
nations  came. 

In  the  midst  of  the  church  the  promised  Messiah, 
tJie  Seed  in  whom  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  were 
comprised,  appeared,  a  light  to  lighten  the  Gentilea^  and 
the  glory  of  his  people  Israel;  to  pefom  the  mercy  prom- 
ised unto  the  fathers^  and  to  remember  the  holy  cove- 
nant. On  his  appearance,  the  shadows  of  the  Mosaic 
iispensaticxn  fled  av/ay  ;  the  law  of  commandments  cop.- 


(     46     ) 

tained  in  ordinances  was  abolished  ;  the  ir.iddle  wall  of 
partition  between  Jews  and  Gentiles  was  broken  down  ; 
a  new  and  brighter  dispensation  was  introduced  ;  the 
Lord  arose  upon  his  church  and  hif  glory  was  seen  upon 
her^  and  the  Gentiles  came  to  her  light^  and  kings  to  the 
brightness  of  her  rising. 

But  great  as  the  change  at  this  eventful  period  was, 
and  glorious  as  the  scene  appeared,  it  was  all  in  fulfil- 
ment of  the  promises  to  Abraham.  Though  a  new  and 
a  brighter  dispensation  was  introduced,  yet  the  church 
continued  the  same,  which  had  almost  two  thousand 
years  before  been  established  by  the  covenant  made  with 
Abraham  and  his  seed ;  that  covenant  which  was  to  con- 
tinue for  perpetual  generations,  which  neither  the  insti- 
tution nor  the  abolition  of  the  Mosaic  economy  could 
disannul,  and  by  virtue  of  which  the  Gentiles  becayne  fel- 
low heirsy  and  of  the  same  body^  and  partakers  of  the 
J)romise  in  Christ  by  the  gospel. 

Thus  advanced  to  a  more  elevate^  and  improved 
«tate,  illumined  with  vastlyjincreased  light,  and  enlarged 
by  the  accession  of  the  Gentile  nations,  the  church  con- 
tinued for  many  years  to  gain  extension  and  establish- 
ment, lengthening  her  cords  and  strengthening  her  stakes. 
Founded  upon  an  immoveable  rock,  she  has  remained 
stedfast  amidst  all  the  convulsions  and  revolutions  of  the 
world,  by  which  kingdoms  and  empires  have  been  sunk 
in  ruins.  Neither  the  fury  of  ten  successive  persecutions 
under  Pagan  Rome,  nor  the  still  more  sanguinary  and 
persevering  violence  and  machinations  of  Papal  Rome, 
could  overthrow  or  destroy  her.  God  has  remembered 
his  covenant,  and  the  combined  powers  of  earth  and  hell 
have  exerted  themselves  in  'vain.  The  church  is  still 
continued ;  is  extending  herself  on  every  side  ;  and  is 
rising  in  beauty  and  in  glory. 


(     47     ) 

The  blessing^  of  Abraham  has  come  upon  the  present 
generation  :  the  promises  made  to  him,  and  from  period 
to  period  renewed  and  unfolded  to  the  church,  are  in  a 
train  of  rapid  and  grand  accomplishment.  And  the  day, 
the  millennial  day,  is  at  hand,  when  the  kingdom  and  the 
greatness  of  the  kingdom^  and  the  dominion  under  the 
whole  heaven  shall  be  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of 
the  nwst  high  God,  and  when  in  Abraham  and  his  seed^  all 
the  kindreds  and  families  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed. 

Such,  my  brethren,  was  the  great  design  of  the  church; 
such  has  been  itsprojpress  ;  and  such  are  its  prospects. 
Such  has  been  the  stability  of  God's  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed,  and  such  his  faithfulness  to  his  pro- 
mises. If  then^  ye  be  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  accord- 
ing t(y  the  promise.,  how  firm  is  the  foundation  of  your 
hopes  ;  how  rich  and  how  durable  is  your  inheritance. 


2.  From  the  view  which  we  have  talcen  of  the  cove- 
nant made  with  Abraham  it  appears,  that  this  covenant 
is  never  established  with  any  but  true  believers,  or  the 
subjects  of  true  religion. 

God's  promise  to  those  with  whom  this  covenant  is 
established  is  to  be  a  God  to  them,  and  to  their  seed  af- 
ter fhem.  But  God  is  not  in  this  covenant  sense  a  God 
to  any  but  true  believers,  or  the  subjects  of  true  religion. 
Hence,  that  he  may  be  a  God  to  the  house  of  Israel^^ox  to 
the  church  and  her  seed,  he  says,  I  •will put  my  laivs  in 
their  tn/inds,  and  -write  them  in  their  hearts.  This  obvi- 
ously imports  all  which  is  understood  by  the  regenera- 
tion or  renewal  of  the  heart  by  the  Spirit,  in  righteous- 
ness and  true  holiness;  and,  therefore,  clearly  imports 
that  the  covenant  is  established  only  v,^jth  true  believers, 
•r  th«  subjects  of  true  religion. 


(     48      ) 

Abraham  was  a  true  believer  ;  and  as  a  condition  on 
which  God  would  establish  his  coveJiant  with  him,  to  be 
a  God  to  him  and  his  seed  after  him,  he  was  required  to 
walk  before  God  and  be  perfect.  Isaac,  and  after  him, 
Jacob,  were  also  true  believers  ;  and  with  them,  as  such, 
God  established  his  covenant,  to  be  a  God  to  them,  and 
to  their  seed  after  them.  In  after-ages,  when  God  re- 
newed his  covenant  with  the  Israelites,  the  jiosterity  of 
Abraham,  he  always  required  of  them,  and  they  always 
professed  to  have,  a  truly  obedient  and  believing  heart. 
It  is  also  particularly  observable,  that  it  was  because  of 
unbeliefs  that  the  carcases  of  so  many  thousands  fell  in 
the  wilderness  ;  that,  a  long  time  afterwards,  both  Israel 
and  Judah  %ere  carried  away  captive  from  their  land 
and  dispersed  among  the  nations  ;  and  that,  finally,  so 
large  a  proportion  of  the  Jevrs  were  broken  off  from 
the  visible  church  of  God,  and  rejected  from  being  a 
people.  And  under  the  gospel,  it  is  only  true  believers, 
such  as  are  in  Christ  by  faith,  who  are  Abraham's  seed, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.* 

3.  It  appears  that  a  cordial  and  obedient  belief  in  all 
which  God  has  proposed,  in  his  gracious  covenant,  is  of 
high  and  everlasting  importance. 

God's  covenant  promise,  or  proposal,  my  brethren,  is 
to  be  a  God  to  you,  and  to  your  seed  after  you.  If,  with 
a  believing  and  obedient  heart,  you  take  hold  of  his  cov- 
enant, and  give  up  yourselv«s  to  him  in  Christ,  he  will 
be  your  God  ;  will  give  you  grace  for  grace,  will  be- 
stow upon  you  every  good  thing,  and  wall  keep  you  by 
his  mighty  power  through  faith  unto  salvation.  And,  if 
with  the  same  believing  and  obedient  heart,  you  give  up 

*  Though  the  covenant  is  never,  on  God's  part,  established 
■with  any  but  true  believers  ;  yet  all  who  have  taken  the  vows 
upon  them  ought  to  feel  thennselves  sacredly  bound  to  fulfil 
their  engagements.  If  they  have  opened  t'-.elr  mouths  untc 
the  Lord,  they  cant:ot  go  back. 


(    49     ) 

xour  children  to  him,  he  will  also  be  a  God  to  them , 
will  in  due  time  bestow  upon  them,  in  answer  to  your  be- 
lieving prayers,  his  renewing  grace,  xvillput  his  laws  into 
their  minds  and  write  them  in  their  hearts^  and  will  make 
them  heirs  of  the  righteousness  oj"  faith,  and  of  all  the 
blessings  of  his  gracious  and  everlasting  covenant. 

But  if  you  refuse,  and  continue  in  unbelief,  whatever 
your  profession  or  visible  standing  may  be,  you  can  have 
no  title  to  the  promises,  no  real  interest  in  the  covenant. 
if  you  do  not  believingly  and  obediently  give  up  your- 
selves to  him,  he  will  not  be  your  God  ;  but  will  regard 
you  as' strangers,  and  foreigners,  and  enemies.  And  if 
you  do  not  believingly  and  obediently  give  up  your  chil- 
dren to  him,  even  though  you  give  up  yourselves  j  yet 
you  will  not  be  entitled  to  claim  the  blessings  of  his 
gracious  promise  in  respect  to  them. 

If,  without  faith  and  fidelity  in  respect  to  the  one  part 
of  his  promise,  God  is  not  by  his  covenant  engaged  tob« 
your  God  ;  so  neither,  without  faith  and  fideility  in  res- 
pect to  the  other  part  of  his  promise,  is  he  by  his  cove- 
nant engaged  to  be  the  God  of  ijour  children. 

It  is  not,  indeed,  supposed  to  be  certain,  tliat  if  you 
be  unbelieving  and  disobedient,  your  children  will  be 
finally  lost ;  for  God  may,  as  often  in  his  sovereign  mer- 
cy he  ^oes,  go  out  of  the  limits  of  the  church,  and  bestow 
his  grace  on  those  who  are  aliens  from  the  commonwealth 
of  Israel,  and  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise. 
But  if  in  this  case  he  does  bestow  grace  upon  your  chil- 
dren, it  will  not  be  in  pursuance  of  any  covenant  engage- 
ment to  you.  And  as  he  has  declared  that  he  will  visit 
the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children^  if  you  be 
unbelieving  and  unfaithful  in  respect  to  your  children^ 
7/111  you  not  have  reason  for  the«most  fearful  apprehen- 
sions, lest  they  should  perish  in  their  sins  ?  Is  it  r.ot 
G 


(      50     > 
» 
then  important,  infinitely  important,  that  you  take  holcj 

of  the  promises  of  God,  and  with  a  truly  believing  and 
obedient  heart,  give  up,  not  only  yourselves,  but  your 
children  also,  to  him,  in  a  covenant  not  to  be  forgotten  ? 


4.  From  our  subject  Vre  may  infer,  that  for  believing 
parents  to  give  their  children  to  God,  in  baptism,  is  a 
great  and  important  duty. 

When  God  established  his  covenant  with  Abraham, 
he  gave  him  the  sign  of  circwncision^  a  seal  of  the  righ' 
teousness  of  faith ;  andifi  the  self-sayne  daywas  Abraham 
circumcised  and  Ishmael  his  son  /  and  all  the  men  of  his 
kouse^  born  in  the  house^  and  bought  xvith  ynoney  of  the 
stranger^  xvere  circumcised  xuith  him.  Anciently  circu?n- 
cision  was  the  appointed  seal  of  the  righteousness  offaithy 
the  sign  or  ^token  of  God's  gracious  covenant^  and  the 
mark  or  badge  of  solemn  dedication  to  him  ;  and  the  re- 
quirement that  the  children  of  the  church,  as  well  as- 
dielr  parents,  should  be  circumcised  Was  enforced  with 
the  greatest  solemnity^ 

But  if  the  covenant  and  the  church  are  the  same,  con- 
tinued down  from  the  days  of  Abraham,  if  God's  prom- 
ise be  still  to  be  a  God  not  only  to  believers,  but  also  to 
their  seed  ;  then,  as  the  outward  seal  of  the  covenant  was 
originally  required  to  be  administered  to  the  infant  seed 
of  the  church;  so,  unless  it  has  been  expressly  prohib- 
ited, it  is  still  to  be  administered  to  them.  But  whera, 
my  brethren,  is  the  prohibition  to  be  fonad  ?  In  what 
part  of  the  word  of  God  is  it  declared,  or  intimated,  that 
the  appointed  seal  of  the  covenant  is  no  longer  to  be  ad- 
ministered to  the  infant  seed  of  the  church  ?  The  seal 
has  indeed  been  altered.  Circumcision  has  been  discon- 
tinued, and  baptism  appointed  in  its  place.  But  no  or- 
der, no  intimation  has  been  given,   that  the  seal   in  its 


(  51  ) 

present  form  is  not,  as  it   was  expressly  required  in    its 
ancient  form,  to  be  applied  to  the  children  of  the  church. 

That  baptism  has  taken  the  place  of  circumcision,  is 
exceedingly  evident.  Circumcision  under  the  former 
dispensation  signified'the  necessity  of  a  regeneration,  or 
renovation,  of  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  baptism  un- 
der the  present  dispensation  signifies  the  same.  Circum- 
cision was  formerly  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith; 
baptism  is  now  a  seal  of  the  same  righteousness.  Cir- 
cumcision was  formerly  a  token  of  God's  gracious  cove- 
nant withi  his  people;  baptism  is  now  a  token  of  the  same 
covenants  Circumcision  was  formerly  a  mark  or  badge 
of  solemn  dedication  to  God  ;  baptism  is  now  a  mark  or 
badge  of  the  same  solemn  dedication.  Circumcision 
was  formerly  an  appointed  prerequisite  of  admission  to 
the  church  of  God  ^  baptism,  is  now  an  appointied  pre- 
requisite of  admission  to  the  same  church.  In  a  word, 
baptism  is  of  the  same  import,  and  of  the  same  use  in 
the  church  under  the  present  dispensation,  as  was  cir- 
cumcision under  the  ancient. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  under  the  ancient  dispensation 
the  seal  of  the  covenant  was  applied  only  to  males  ;  while 
imder  the  present  dispensation  it  is  applied  to  both  males 
and  females.  It  is  also  true,  that  this  is  not  the  only  im- 
portant distinction,  which  was  made  between  males  and 
females,  under  the  ancient  dispensation.  But  whatever 
distinctions,  were  formerly  made,  we  are  assured  by  the 
apostle  that,  in  respect  to  the  privileges  of  the  covenantjf 
there  is  to  be  no  longer  any  distinction  ;  for  in  Christ 
"Jesus  there  is  neither  male  nor  female^ 

Nothing,  therefore,  appears  to  militate  with  the  sen- 
timent, that  baptism  has  in  fact  taken  place  of  circumci- 
sion ;  but  the  whole  analogy  of  scripture  goes  to  6up|H- 
it.     Accordingly  the  apostle,  in  the  second   of  Cc  •? 


(      52     ) 

sians,  evidently  speaks  of  b?vptism  as  being  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ,  or  Christian  circumcision. 

But  if  baptism  has  been  appointed  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision, as  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  a 
token  of  God's  gracious  corenant  with  his  people,  and  a 
mark  or  badge  of  solemn  dedication  to  the  Lord ;  then, 
as  circumcision  was  anciently  administered  to  the  chil- 
dren of  the  church  ;  so,  as  before  observed,  unless  there 
have  been  a  divine  prohibition,  baptism  is  now  to  be  ad- 
ministered to  them.  As  there  was  under  the  former 
dispensation  an  express  precept  for  administering  the 
seal  of  the  covenant  to  the  infant  seed  of  the  church  j 
that  precept,  varying  only  as  the  seal  is  varied,  still  re- 
mains in  force,  unless  it  have  been  expreisly  repealed. 
It  is  arrogance,  therefore,  to  demand,  for  we  have  no 
right  to  expect,  an  explicit  renewal  of  this  precept  to  be 
found  in  the  new  testament,  any  more  than  of  the  pre- 
cept for  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath. 

In  the  Old  Testament  there  is  an  explicit  precept  for 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  also  an  explicit  pre- 
cept for  the  application  of  the  seal  of  the  covenant  to  the 
infant  seed  of  the  church  ;  and  as  the  change  of  the  Sab- 
bath, under  the  present  dispensation,  from  the  seventh 
to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  is  not  to  be  considered  as  a 
repeal  of  the  precept  respecting  the  Sabbath  j  so  neither 
is  the  change  of  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  from  circum- 
cision to  baptism,  to  be  considered  as  a  repeal  of  the  pre- 
cept respecting  the  application  of  the  seal.  The  church 
remains  the  same,  and  the  covenant  the  same ;  the  re- 
lation of  the  children  of  the  church  is  the  same,  and  the 
seal  of  the  covenant,  though  varied  in  form,  is  still  of  the 
same  import,  and  of  the  same  use,  and  to  be  applied  to 
the  same  subjects.*' 

*  Though  the  antipxdopainists  deny  that  the  great  promise 
rt  the  coveniiiit,  in  its  true  and  spiritual  import,  had  any  spe- 


(     53     ) 

It  is  not  incumbent  on  us  to  shew,  that  the  precept 
lor  administering  the  appointed  seal  of  the  covenant  to 
the  infant  seed  of  the  church  has  not  been  repealed  ;  but 
it  is  indispensibly  incumbent  on  those  who  deny  infant 
baptism,  to  shew  in  the  clearest  manner,  that  it  has  been 
repealed.  For  a  precept,  once  in  force,  ai\d  not  limited 
to  any  certain  period,  is  ever  afterwards  tobe  considered 
as  in  force,  unless  known  to  have  been  repealed  by  the 
same  authority  by  which  it  was  given. 

There  is  not,  however,  in  the  whole  word  of  God, 

cial  respect  to  Abraham's  natural  seed  ;  yet  they  admit,  and 
even  insist,  that  children,  the  natural  seed  of  Abraham,  were 
members  of  the  church  or  community,  of  which  he  was  the  co- 
venant father  \ 

We  are  told,  moreover,  that  the  church,  or  community,  form- 
ed by  the  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  was  a  tyfie  of 
the  gospel  church.  But  if,  in  that  church,  supposed  to  be  ty- 
pical, children  were  admitted  to  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  and 
were  recognized  as  members  ;  and  if,  in  the  gospel  church 
they  are-  neither  to  be  recognized  as  members,  nor  admitted  to 
the  seal  of  the  covenant ;  how  does  the  antitype  answer  to  the 
tyfie  ?  What  is  gained  to  the  argument  of  the  antipaedobap- 
tists,  or  lost  to  ours,  by  supposing  the  Abrahamic  church  to 
have  been  merely  typical? 

The  very  palpable  inconsistencies,  noticed  in  this  and  two 
former  notes,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  exhibit  together  in  one 
point  of  view. 

1.  The  covenant  made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  was  only 
a  temporal  covenant,  and  formed  only  a  temporal  church  ;  yet 
the  great  promise  of  the  covenant  had  respect,  not  to  natural^ 
but  only  to  spiritzial  seed  1 

2.  Though  the  great  promise  of  the  covenant  had  respect, 
not  to  natural,  but  only  to  spiritual  seed  ;  yet  the  covenant  wab 
Icng  ago  abolished.  Since  the  coming  of  Tviesbiah  God  is  no 
longer,  by  covenant,  the  God  of  Abraham  and  his  [fpirituar^ 
seed  1 

3.  Though  the  great  premise  of  the  covenant  had  no  respect 
to  natural  seed  ;  yet  the  natural  seed  were  not  only  admitted 
to  the  seal  cf  the  covenant,  but  even,  as  members,  to  all  the 
privileges  of  the  church  ! 

4.  Thcugh  the  Abrahamic  church  was  a  type  of  the  Christian 
church,  and  in  that  church  children  were  adrnitied  to  the  seal 
of  the  covenant,  and  to  all  the  pririleges  of  members  ;  yet  in 
the  gospel  church,  they  are  neither  to  be  recognized  lis  mem- 
bers, nor  even  » egarded  as  fit  subjects  for  the  seal  of  the  cove- 
nant '. 

Such  are  a  few  of  the  absurdities  of  the  antinaedobaptist 
^•"hcmc- 


(     ^4     ) 

tlie  least  intimation  that  this  precept  has  ever  been  rt- 
pealed  ;  there  is  not  in  the  whole  woid  of  God  the  least 
intimation,  that  the  seal  of  the  covenant  is  not,  under  the 
present  dispensation,  as  it  was  under  the  former,  to  be 
applied  to  the  children  of  the  church. 

Neither  the  commission,  given  to  the  apostles,  Go 
and  teach  all  nations  baptizing  the^n-,  nor  the  exhortation 
addressed  by  them  to  the  people,  Repent  and  he  baptized., 
comes  near  to  touch  the  point  in  question.  Neither  the 
one  nor  the  other  goes  to  prove  any  thing  further,  than 
that  those,  who  have  not  received  baptism,  must  not  only 
believe,  but  be  baptized,  in  order  to  a  regular  standing  in 
the  visible  church  of  God.  It  was  precisely  thus  under 
the  former  dispensation.  Those  who  had  never  been 
circumcised  were  required  to  be  circumcised,  in  order 
to  their  regular  standing  in  the  church.  But  whenever 
parents  who  had  never  been  circumcised,  were  admitted 
to  the  church,  they  were  not  only  circumcised  them- 
selves, jbut  were  afterwards  required  to  offer  their  chil- 
^en  in  the  same  sealing  ordinance^ 

Had  the  seal  of  the  covenant  never  been  altered,  tlie 
commission,  given  to  the  apostles,  would  have  been.  Go 
and  teach  all  nations^  circumcising  them;  and  their  ex- 
hortation to  those  who  had  never  received  circumcision, 
would  have  been.  Repent  and  be  circumcised  ;  for  the 
promise  is  to  you  and  to  your  children.  But  had  the 
case  been  thus,  who  would  ever  have  imagined,  that 
there  was  any  thing,  either  in  the  commission,  or  exhor- 
tation, like  an  intimation  that  children  were  no  longer 
to  receive  the  seal  of  the  covenant.  The  real  case,  how- 
ever, is  substantially  the  same-  Those  who  have  never 
received  baptism  are  required  not  only  to  believe,  but 
also  be  baptized,  in  order  to  their  regular  standing  in 
the  church  ;  but  having  been  regularly  admitted,  they 
are  to  offer  their  children  also  in  baptism,  as  formerly 


(     55     ) 

they  were  required  to  offer  them  in  circumcision.  For 
the  promise  is  now  the  same  that  it  formerly  was,  to  be 
a  God  not  only  to  them,  but  also  to  their  seed  after 
them  ;  and  on  the  ground  of  this  promise,  parents  arc 
still  required,  as  formerly  they  were,  believingly  to  give 
up,  not  only  themselves,  but  their  children  also,  to  the 
Lord.* 

*  It  is  no  small  infeUcity,attending  the  arguments  of  the  anti- 
dsedobaptists,  that  they  go  wide  of  the  point,  to  which  they  are 
professedly  directed.  When  they  would  prove  that  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant  has  ceased,  the  arguments  advanced  only  go 
to  shew  that  the  Mosaic  law,  or  Sinai  covenant,  is  abolished  ; 
which  we,  as  well  as  they,  admit  and  believe.  And  when  they 
would  prove,  that  the  infant  seed  of  the  church  oaght  not  to 
be  baptized,  the  arguments  adduced  only  go  to  shew,  that  be- 
lievers, who  have  never  received  baptism,  ought  to  be  bap- 
tized ;  which  we  as  well  as  they,  admit  and  believe.  But,  as 
when  it  is  shewn  that  the  Mosaic  law,  or  Sinai  covenant,  i$ 
abolished,  nothing  is  done  towards  proving  that  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant  has  ceased  ;  so  when  it  is  shewn  that  believers, 
who  have  never  received  baptism,  ought  to  be  baptized,  noth- 
ing is  done  towards  proving  that  the  infant  seed  of  the  church 
ought  not  to  be  baptized.  Nothing  more  is  done,  in  either  case, 
towards  proving  the  point  in  question,  than  would  be  done  to- 
wards proving  that  female  members  of  the  church  are  not  to  be 
admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  should  it  only  be  shewn  that 
male  members  are  to  be  admitted.  Yet  wide  as  these  argu- 
ments go  of  the  points  to  be  proved,  they  are  urged  and  i^e- 
peated  with  as  much  assurance,  as  if  they  were  pertinent  and 
conclusive ;  and  with  weak,  unstable,  and  undiscerning,  mindsj 
they  have  but  too  often  their  intended  effect. 

The  celebrated  Mr.  Baxter,  when  employed,  in  his  stuuiy, 
in  writing  a  defence  of  infant  baptism,  heard  the  hawkers  cry- 
under  his  windows,  "  Baxter's  Arguments  FOR  Believ- 
ers'Baptism.  The  fact  was,  in  some  of  his  publications, 
speaking  of  the  terms  of  the  baptismal  covenant,  Mr  Bax- 
ter had  shewn  the  necessity  of  a  justifying  faith  in  order  t& 
baptism.  From  these  publications,  though  Mr.  Baxter  had 
been  careful  to  declare  that  he  spoke  in  reference  to  adults  on- 
ly, collections  were  made,  and  published  in  a  pamphlet,  as  ar- 
guments against  infant  baptism.  Upon  this  Mr.  Baxter  ob- 
serves, "  The  men  that  cite  authors  at  this  rate,  cite  me  against 
myself  with  the  like  confidence."  Baxter's  More  Proofs  for 
Infant  Baptism. 

In  a  manner  similar  to  this  some  of  the  primitive  fathers,  as 
particularly  Chrysostom,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  and  even  Aus- 
tin, who,  in  his  dispute  with  Pelagius,  had  expressly  alledged 
infafit  baptism  in  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  have 
been  quoted  by  the  antipaedobaptists,  as  if  favoring  their  cause. 


(     56      ) 

Suffer  little  children^  says  Christ,  and  forbid  them  not 
to  come  unto  me ;  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  Heaven. 
Repent^  says  Peter  to  the  thousands  who  had  never  been 
baptized,  Repent  and  be  baptized— for  the  promise  is  to 
you  and  to  your  children.  Tor  the  unbelieving  husband, 
says  Paul,  is  sanctified  by  the  tvife,  and  the  unbelieving 
xvife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband  ;  else  were  your  children 
unclean^  but  now  are  they  holy.  These  plain  intimations 
are  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  language  of  ancient 
prophecy,  concerning  the  church  in  gospel  davs.  Their 
children  also  shall  be  as  aforetime^  and  their  congregation, 
or  church;  shall  be  established.  Aforetime  the  children 
of  the  church  were  solemnly  dedicated  to  God,  and  seal-' 
ed  with  the  seal  of  his  everlasting  covenant.  Accord- 
ingly we  have  examples  on  record  in  the  new  testament 
of  believing  parents  dedicating  their  children,  and  ob- 
taining for  them  the  baptismal  seal.  Not  only  did  Christ 
receive  little  children  into  his  arms,  and  bless  them  ;  but 
ijis  apostles  baptized  whole  households.  Lydiawas  not 
only  baptized  herself;  but  afterwards  had  her  whole 
household  also  baptized.  The  believing  Jailor  was  bap- 
tized himself,  a7id  all  his  straightway.  The  household 
of  Stephanus  was  also  baptized. 

As  we  have  sufficient  evidence  that  it  was  the  prac- 
tice of  the  apostles,  pursuant  to  the  tenor  of  God's  gra- 
cious covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  to  baptize 
the  households  of  believing  parents  ;  so  we  have  the 
testimonv  of  the  earliest  of  the  Christian  fathers,  that 
this  was  the  universal  practice  of  the  church,  in  the  ages 
immediately  succeeding  the  apostles. 


And  in  a  manner  equally  unfair  and  preposterous,  are  Christ 
and  his  apostles  often  quoted. 

In  a  word,  the  arguments  most  in  use  among  the  antipsedo- 
baptists,  and  of  the  greatest  efficacy,  as  a  sort  of  popular 
charm,  do  not  touch  the  points  of  real  difference  between  us 
and  them 


(  ^J'  ) 

For  more  than  three  thousand  years  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  was  universally  applied  to  the  children  of  the 
church,  no  one  forbidding  it.  It  was  thus  during  the 
space  of  about  four  hundred  years,  which  intervened  be- 
tween the  first  establishment  of  the  church,  in  the  family 
of  Abraham,  and  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Mount  Sinai. 
It  was  thus  for  the  space  of  about  fifteen  hundred  years, 
during  which  the  Mosaic  dispensation  was  continued. 
And  it  was  thus  for  the  space  of  about  eleven  hun- 
dred years,  after  the  introduction  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation. And  if,  during  the  last  three  hundred  years, 
there  have  been  some  in  the  different  parts  of  Christen- 
dom, who  have  forbidden  little  children  to  be  brought  to 
Christ,  and  denied  thfe  application  of  the  seal  of  the  cove- 
nant to  them  ;  yet,  thanks  be  to  God,  in  respect  to  this 
interesting  matter,  the  great  body  of  the  church  has  still 
adhered  to  the  divine  institute,  and  to  the  uniform  prac- 
tice of  the  faithful  in  all  former  ages.*" 

*  As  there  was  no  dispute  about  baptis:n  in  the  first  ages  of 
Christianity,  it  should  not  be  expected  tliat  much  v/ouki  be  found, 
particularly  on  the  subject,  in  the  writings  of  those  ages.  But 
because  there  is  nothing  directly  on  the  subject,  either  for  or 
against  infant  babtism,  in  the  fragments  which  have  come  down 
to  us,  of  the  writings  of  the  first  century,  the  antipxdobaptists, 
with  an  assurance  peculiar  to  theiiiselves,  have  undertaken  to 
assert,  not  to  p.rove,  that  during  the  first  century,  infant  bap- 
tism %uas  not  practised  in  the  church.  With  equal  propriety  we 
might  assert,  even  had  we  no  proof  to  support  our  assertion,  that 
it  was  practi.'^ed  universally.  But  we  are  not  reduced  to  this 
extremity.  The  sacred  truth  is,  there  is  as  much  evidence,  as, 
from  the  state  of  the  case,  couid  reasonably  be  expected,  that 
during  the  first  century,  and  for  several  succeeding  age^,  infant 
baptism  was  practised  in  the  church,  universally,  and  without 
contradiction  or  question. 

In  the  writings  of  Clemens  Romanus  and  Hermks  Pas- 
tor, both  cotemjjoraries  with  the  apostles,  and  both  mentioned 
by  Paul,  the  ftirmcr  in  his  epistle  to  the  Phillipitins,  and  the  latter 
in  his  epistle  to  the  ilomans,  passages  are  extant,  vv^hich  by  fair 
implication  prove  the  practice  ol  infant  baptism  in  their  day. — 
Justin  Martyr  a.id  Iren-^us,  the  former  of  whom  was  born 
"within  three  or  four  years  after  the"  death  of  the  apostle  John, 
and  the  latter  of  whom  was  the  disciple  of  Polycarp,  the  bish- 
op or  angel  of  the  church  of  Smyrna,  to  whom  John,  in  the  Re- 
velation, addressed  his  epistle,  are  more  particular  and  clear,  to 
:he  same  j^urpose.  Tektullian,  whe  was  ab&ut  ekven 
H 


(     58     ) 

It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  the  limits  of  an  infei*- 
snce,  in  a  discourse  like  this,  will  admit  of  an  exhibition 
of  all  the  various  and  abundant  proof,  which  might  be 
exhibited,  and  which  has  from  time  to  time  by  different 

years  old  when  Polycarp  died,  and  was  many  year?  cotemporray 
with  Irensius  ;  and  Origkn,  who  v/as  cotemporary  wrth  Teiv 
tullian,  arc  direct  and  explicit  on  the  subject.  Speaking  of  the. 
moral  pollution  of  infants,  Origen  says,  "  What  is  the  reason, 
that,  wliereas  the  baptism  of  the  church  is  given  for  forgivenesSy 
iNFAivTs  also,  by  the  usage  of  the  church,  are  baptized  ;  when 
if  there  were  nothing  in  infants,  which  wanted  forgiveness  or 
mercy,  baptism  would  be  needless  to  them."  Cyprian,  bishop 
of  Carthage,  who  suffered  martyrdom  for  the  Christian  faith, 
only  about  five  years  after  the  death  of  Origen,  was  presideiit  of" 
a.  council,  which  consisted  of  sixty  six  bishops,  or  pastors  of 
churches,  and  which  delivered  an  unanimous  opinion,  *'  that  the 
baptism  of  infants  was  not  to  be  deferred,"  as  some  supposed  it 
should  bo,  ''  to  the  eighth  day,  but  mij^^iJt  be  given  to  them  any 
time  before."  Gregory  NazianzeIt,  Basil,  Ambrose, 
Chrysostom,  and  Jerome,  all  of  whom  flourished  within 
about  a  hundred  years  of  Origen  and  Cyprian,  ai-e  all  ex- 
plicit on  the  subject ;  explain  the  design  of  infant  baptism,  men- 
tion it  as  comin;^  i.i  the  place  of  circumcision,  and  speak  of  it  as. 
the  universal  and  undisputed  p]-actice  of  the  church. 

Austin,  who  was  cotempoi-ary  with  some  of  these  last,  aad 
who  flourished  only  about  two  hundred  and  eighty  years  after  the 
apostles, in  a  controversy  with  Pelagics,  alledged  the  practice 
of  infant  baptism,  in  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  "  Why- 
are  infants,"  says  he,  "  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sin,  if  they" 
have  none  ?  Infant  baptism  the  whole  church  practices  ;  it  was 
not  instituted  by  councils,  but  was  ever  in  use."  Pelagius, 
whose  interest  it  was  to  set  this  argument  aside,  was  so  far  from 
denying  the  alledged  fact,  that, in  reply  to  the  suggestion  of  some 
that  by  denying  original  sin,  he  denied  the  right  of  infants  t« 
baptism,  he  utterly  discards  the  idea,  and  affirms,  "  that  he  never 
heard  of  any,  not  even  the  most  impious  heretic,  who  denied 
baptism  to  infants,"  This  testimony  is  impregnable.  Pelagius 
v^-as  a  man  cf  great  reading,  and  had  travelled  extensively.  He 
was  born  in  Britain,  resided  some  time  at  Rome,  and  made  the 
cour  of  the  Christianized  parts  of  Africa  and  Asia,  by  the  way 
of  Egypt  and  Jerusalem.  Yet  in  the  whole  of  his  reading  and  of 
his  travels,  he  never  read  or  heard  of  any,  who  denied  the  di- 
vine institution  of  infant  baptism  1 

From  this  period,  the  matter  is  clear,  beyond  dispute.  Dr. 
Gill  himself,  one  of  the  most  learned  of  the  antipsdobaptist 
writers,  acknowledges  that  "  infant  baptism  was  the  practice  of 
the  church,  universally,  from  the  third  to  the  eleventh  century." 
"For  the  first  four  nt  ndred  years,"  says  Dr.  Wall, 
in  his  History  of  inuuit  Baptism,  '■'  there  appears  enly  one  man, 
Tcrtullian,  that  advised  the  delay  of  infant  baptism,  in  some 
cases  ;  and  one  Gregory,  v.ho  did  perhaps  practise  such  delay,  in 
the  case  of  his  own  children  :    hut  no  society,  so  thinking  cr  sc 


(     59     ) 

writers  been  exhibited,  in  support  of  infant  baptism. 
But  the  summary  proof  which  has  now  been  ofFered, 
may  suffice  for  our  present  purpose. 

If  the  Abrahamic  covenant  be  still  the  covenant  of 
.the  church,  and  if  the  view  \vhich  we  have  taken  of  the 
covenant  be  substantially  correct ;  it  will  be  admitted,  on 

practising,  nor  one  man  so  saying,  that  it  was  iinlaAvful  to  bap- 
tize infants.  In  the  next  seven  hundred  years,  thei-e  is  not 
so  much  as  one  man  to  be  found,  that  either  spojaior  practised 
such  delay,  but  all  the  contrary.  And  when  ^oiit  the  year 
ILHVEN  HUNDRED  AND  THIRTY,  o^c  sfc?  among  the  Waldenses 
(declared  against  the  baptizing  of  infants,  as  being  incapable  cf 
salvation  j  the  main  body  of  that  people  rejected  their  opinion. 
^nd  the  sect  that  still  held  to  it,  quickly  dwindled  aivjiy  and 
disajificcred.  And  there  ivas  nothing-  more  heard  of  holding 
Hhat  tcnety  till  the  year  FIFTEE^T  hundred  and  twen- 
ty TWO."  In  confirmation  of  this  statement  it  may  be  proper 
to  observe,  that  Mr.  Whiston,  a  maii  eminent  in  literature, 
•who  for  certain  rsasons  left  the  commanion  of  the  established 
church  cf  England,  and  went  over  to  the  antipxdobaptists,  frank' 
ly  declares,  that  Dr.  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  as  to  the 
facts,  appeared  to  him  most  accurately  done,  and  mig^ht  be  de- 
pended upon  by  the  Baptists  themselves." 

The  unprejudiced  reader  will  now  judge,  with  hovr  rnuch  can- 
dor and  truth,  an  attempt  has  been  made  in  scnie  late  publica- 
tions, to  make  the  unlearned  and  unstable  believe,  that  the  prac- 
tice of  infant  baptism  had  its  rise  in  the  dark  ages,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  popery.  To  give  countenance  to  this  attempt,  some 
passages  have  been  quoted  from  Walafrid  Straso,  m  which 
he  has  represented  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  the  doctrine 
of  infant  baptism,  as  having  had  their  origin  about  the  time  of 
St.  Austin.  But  the  representations  of  Strubo,  a  man  of  but  Jit- 
tle  reading,  but  of  great  affectation  to  say  something  new,  v.-ho 
■wrote,  about  the  middle  of  the  eighth  century,  in  the  very  midst 
of  the  Gothic  darkness,  as  they  go  directly  in  the  face  cf  the 
primitive  fathers  of  the  c^^rch,  are  stn-ely  cii'".itied  to  very  little 
regard. 

As  to  the  assertion  in  "A  Miniature  History  o^  the  Baptists," 
that  "  the  Waldenses,  Wickliffites,  and  Hu.ssiies  were  bapti^its," 
it  may  sufr.ce  to  sa) ,  there  is  sulncient  eviderxe  that  it  has  no 
foundation  in  trjuth.  The  sentiments  hoidenbv  them  with  respect 
to  the  church,  as  stated  by  Dr.  Mooheim,  are  also  hoiden  by  ma- 
ny of  the  fi£dobafuist  churches  cf  the  present  day.  And  the 
same  reasoning,  if  reasoning  it  must  be  called,  by  which  it  was 
supposed  to  be  proved,  thut  the  Waldenses,  Wickli&ites,  Hus- 
sites, and  other  witnesses  for 'the  truth  in  the  dark  ages,  Avers 
antipsdohaptists,  would  equally  prove  that  the  Tabernacle 
Church  arc  antipaedcb^plists.  This  the  writer  ;  r  "A  Miniature 
History"  has  himself  been  brought  to  acknowledge. 


(     60     ) 

all  hands,  that  the  seal  of  the  covenant  is  still  to  be  ad- 
ministered, as  formerly  it  was,  to  the  infant  seed  of  the 
church.  Those  who  deny  infant  baptism  are  reduced  to 
a  denial  also  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  and  church  ; 
that  covenant  which  was  established  for  an  everlasting 
covenant,  and  which,  though  the  mountains  depart  and 
the  hills  be  removed^  Jehovah  has  declared  shall  never  be 
removed;  and  that  church  which  is  to  be  called  the  city  of 
the  Lord^  the  Zion  of  the  Holy  One  of  Isrsel^  and  which 
Jehovah  has  declared  he  -will  make  an  eternal  excellency^ 
a  joy  of  mcmy  generations  !  But  this  covenant,  my  breth- 
ren, you  cannot  reject :  this  church  ^jou  cannot  renounce. 
And  adhering  religiously,  to  the  everlasting  covenant 
and  church  of  God,  you  cannot  forbid  water  that  your 
children  should  not  receive  the  appointed  seal. 

Nor  is  it  to  be  thought  that  this  is  a  light  matter. 
Let  it  not  be  lightly,  let  it  not,  as  too  often  it  has  been, 
even  contemptuously  be  asked,  What  good  can  it  do  in- 
fants to  be  baptized  ?  Such  a  question,  surelv,  comes 
with  no  very  good  grace  from  persons,  who  place  even, 
perhaps,  an  undue  stress  upon  the  baptism  of  adults. 
With  equal  pertinency  it  might  be  asked, What  good  could 
it  do  the  infants  of  the  church,  anciently,  to  be  circum- 
cised. With  equal  pertinency  it  might  be  asked,  What 
good  can  it  do  infants  b'elievingly  to  give  them  up  to  God, 
to  pray  for  them,  or,  as  they  grow  in  understanding,  re- 
ligiously to  mstruct  them  ?  Nay,  with  equal  pertinency 
it  might  be  asked,  What  benefit  cau  it  be  to  believing  pa- 
rents themselves  to  be  baptized,  if  they  never  before  have 
been  ? 

The  outward  rite,  we  know,  will  never  of  itself,  save 
any  one,  v/hether  infant  or  adult.  But  if  God  has  been 
pleased  gi-aciously  to  promise,  to  be  a  God  unto  us  and 
to  our  seed  after  lis  ;  and  on  the  ground  of  this  pro- 
mise, has  required  that  we  give  not  only  ourselves,  buf^ 


(     61     ) 

«ur  children  also  to  him,  in  an  everlasting  covenant ;  and 
that  the  appointed  seal  of  the  covenant  be  not  only  upon 
us,  but  also  upon  them  ;  then  the  duty  is  as  plain  as  it  is 
important.  Whenever  we  undertake  to  question  the 
propriety  or  utility  of  God's  requirements,  we  throw 
ourselves  at  once  into  the  snare  of  the  devil  ;  and  we 
shall  be  entirely  indebted  to  sovereign  grace,  if  we  ever 
get  rid  of  the  entanglement. 

To  give  up  our  children  to  God,  on  the  ground  of  his 
gracious  promise,  believingly  to  offer  them  for  the  bap- 
tismal seal  of  the  covenant,  to  pray  for  them,  to  com- 
mand them  after  us  in  the  way  of  righteousness  and 
truth,  and  to  train  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admoni- 
tion of  the  Lord,  ar©  great  and  important  covenant  du- 
ties, and  have  so  intimate  and  so  solen.n  a  connexion 
with  each  other,  that  none  of  them  can  be  denied,  or  ne- 
neglected,  without  great  fault,  and  great  hazard. 

3,  It  may  be  inferred  from  our  subject,  that  sprink- 
ling, or  aifusion,  is  a  valid  and  scriptural  mode  of  bap- 
tism. 

It  has  been,  as  we  trust,  clearly  shev/n,  that  the  cove- 
nant, made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and  the  church 
formed  by  it,  were  intended  to  continue,  froni  genera- 
tion to  generation,  down  to  the  latest  periods  of  time. 
For  this  purpose  provision  was  made  in  the  covenant 
itself ;  and  Jehovah,  whose  covenant  it  is,  who  made  the 
provision  for  its  perpetuity,  and  engaged  to  carry  that 
provision  into  effect,  has  certainly  never  failed,  in  res- 
pect to  his  design.  He  has  continued  his  covenant  iand 
his  church,  according  to  his  purpose  and  promise. 

But  if  there  have  been,  in  every  period,  a  true  church 
in  the  v/orld  ;  then  there  have  been,  in  every  period,  es- 
sentially, con-ect  views  of  the  sacran^ents  and  seals  of  the 


(     62     ) 

church.  In  particular,  since  the  alteration  cf  the  first 
seal,  there  must  have  been  essentially  correct  views  of 
baptism.  For  it  were  no  less  absurd  in  itself,  than  in- 
compatible with  the  purposes  and  promises  of  God,  to 
suppose  that,  at  any  period  a  true  church  has  existed, 
without  essentially  correct  views  of  the  first  sacrament 
and  seaL 

It  is,  however,  a  well  supported  fact,  that  in  the  first 
ages  of  Christianity,  and  for  about  twelve  or  fifteen  hun- 
dred years,  baptism,  by  sprinkling,  or  affusion,  was  uni- 
versally allowed  to  be  scriptural  and  valid.  Even  those, 
who  in  ordinary  cases,  baptized  by  immersion,  did  not 
deny,  but  admitted,  the  validity  of  baptism  by  sprinkling 
or  affusion.  Hence,  if  baptism,  by  sprinkling  or  affusion, 
be  not  valid  and  scriptural ;  then  for  the  first  twelve  or 
fifteen  hundred  years,  the  views  of  the  whole  body  of 
the  Christian  world  respecting  baptism,  the  first  sacra- 
ment or  seal  of  the  church,  were  essentially  erroneous. 

It  is  also  a  well  known  fact,  that  for  several  gene  ra- 
tions at  least,  baptism,  by  sprinkling  or  affusion,  was  not 
only  acknowledged  to  be  scriptural  and  A'alid;  but  was 
almost  universally  practised,  by  those  parts  of  the  pro- 
fessedly Christian  world,  which,  by  protestants,  are  be- 
lieved to  have  constituted,  in  those  periods,  the  true 
church  of  Christ. 

Where  was  the  church  of  Christ,  my  brethren,  in  the 
days  cf  the  reformation,  under  Luther  and  Calvin,  Me- 
lancthon  and  Zuinglius,  and  their  co-workers  and  succes- 
sors, if  the  churches,  formed  under  them  were  not  true 
and  regularly  constituted  churches  ?  But  Luther  and 
Calvin,  Melancthon  and  Zuinglius,  and  their  co-workers 
and  successors,  administered  baptism  in  the  mode  of 
sprinkling  or  affusion.  Where  has  been  the  church  of 
Christ,  for  these  two  or  three  hundred  years  past,  if  no 


(     63     ) 

part  of  it  have  been  to  be  found  among  the  Lutherans  of 
Germany,  Denmark  or  Sweden  ;  nor  among  the  Presby-! 
terian  Calvinists  of  Switzerland,  Holland,  or  Scotland; 
nor  among  the  persecuted  Hugonots*'of  France  ;  nor 
among  any  of  the  communions,  either  Episcopal,  Pres- 
byterian, or  Congregational,  of  England  or  America  ? 
But  in  all  these  reformed  communions,  baptism,  by 
sprinkling  or  aJEFusion,  has  been  universally  admitted  as 
valid,  and  almost  universally  practised. 

Is  this  mode  of  baptism',  then,  utterly  invalid  and  un- 
scriptural  ?  Are  all  these  communions,  embracing  the 
great  body  of  the  Protestant  Christian  world,  to  be  en- 
tirely set  aside,  as  constituting  no  part  of  the  true  church 
of  Christ  ?  Is  it  among  the  Anabaptists*  only  ;  is  it 
.  among  those  who  utterly  renounce  the  Abrahamic  cove- 

*  Anabaptist.  This  is  not  intended  as  a  term  of  reproach.  It  is 
the  name  by  which  the  sect,  sometimes  called  baptists,  was  orig- 
inally denominated,  and  is  Used  in  the  connexion  in  which  it 
stands,  as  the  most  proper  term  of  distinction.  The  term,  baji- 
tisty  does  not  properly  distinguish  the  sect  in  question  from  oth- 
ers. VVe  are  all  baptists  ;  that  is,  we  all  hold  to  baptism.  The 
term,  anabafnist,  properly  distinguishes  those  who  rebaptize-,  or 
baptize  again,  such  as  go  over  to  them  from  other  co:nmunions  ; 
as  the  tei*m,  antipadobafuisty  propei'ly  distinguishes  liose  whe 
oppose  the  baptism  of  children. 

It  would  be  unnecessary  to  be  thus  particular  about  names, 
were  it  not  that  a  disposition  has  lately  been  manifested  on  the 
part  of  the  anabaptists,  or  antipsdobaptists,  to  turn  the  name, 
baptist,  which  they  have  assumed,  to  their  advantage.  The  au- 
thor of  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Anderson  has  not  only  gratuitouRly 
coined,  and  contemptuously  bestowed  upon  us,  a  new  name  ;  but 
because  he  finds  that  Johp,  the  harbinger  of  Chriit,  is  called  the 
Baptist,  very  shrewdly  concludes  that  those  who  were  baptized 
by  John,  were  also  baptists,  &c.  But  upon  being  asked  by  vLi 
author  of  these  Discourses,  whether  the  term  baptist,  was  applied 
to  John  in  the  same  sense  in  which  it  is  now  applied  to  those 
who  are  called  baptists,  he  confessed  the  truth,  and  said  it  was 
not. 

The  term  baptist,  as  applied  to  John,  signified  a  baptizer,  or 
one  commissioned  to  baptize.  And  that  an  attempt  should  bs 
made,  such  as  appears  in  Letters  to  Rev.  Mr.  Anderson,  to  im-. 
pose  upon  the  unlearned,by  the  mere  form  and  sound  of  the  word, 
must  be  matter  of  equal  astonishment  and  regret  t«  every  candid 
friend  of  truth. 


(     64     ) 

nant  and  church,  that,  nevertheless,  the  true  church  of 
God  is  only  to  be  found  ? 

The  anabaptist«,  or  antipsedobaptists,  rriy  brethren, 
are  a  sect  of  modern  date.  They  had  their  origin  some- 
time after  the  reformation  under  Luther  and  Calvin  ; 
and  their  origin,  certainly,  though  we  would  by  no  means 
reproach  our  more  regular  brethren  of  the  present  day 
with  it,  was  but  very  little  calculated  to  impress  a  belief 
that  the  true  church  of  God  was  only  to  be  found  among 

them, 

* 

If  at  any  earlier  period,  there  were  any  who  denied 
infant  baptism,  they  were  an  irregular  sect  of  the  Wal- 
densCs,  small,  of  short  continuance,  and  by  the  great 
body  of  the  good  Waldenses,  constantlv  opposed.  It  is 
not,  however,  certain,  that  even  the  Petrobrusians,  the 
sect  here  alluded  to,  were  anabaptists.  And  if  they  were 
not,  ecclesiastical  history  gives  us  no  information  of  any 
antipaedobaptist  societies  or  churches,  until  they  appeared 
in  Germnny,  at  the  period  just  mentioned. 

From  that  period  to  the  present,  though  they  have 
considerably  increased,  and,  some  of  them,  in  maay  res- 
pects, improved  ;  yet  thev  have  ever  been  but  a  very 
small  proportion  of  the  Christian  world.  I  do  not  rtiean 
that  they  have  been  but  a  small  proportion  of  the  nomi- 
nally Christian  world  ;  but  a  very  small  proportion  of 
the  true  atid  fait/if a  I  ■professing  people  of  God.  Allow- 
ing them  all  which  candor  and  charity  can  require,  and 
we  would  certainly  be  candid  and  charitable,  they  have 
always  been,  and  still  continue  to  be,  vastly  outnumbered 
by  other  professors  and  churches,  among  whom  there 
has  been,  at  least,  as  much  Christian  knowledge,  and  as 
much  of  the  spirit  of  the  gospel,  as  among  thfim. 

Can  we,  then,  believe  that  their  mode  of  baptism  only 


(     65     ) 

is  scriptural  and  valid  ?  If  so,  what  becomes  of  the  faith^^ 
fulness  of  God  to  his  promises  ?  If  for  many  centuries, 
the  whole  Christian  world  were  in  an  error,  which,  in  ef- 
fect, destroyed  the  validity  and  the  very  being  of  the  first 
sacrament  or  seal  of  the  church ;  if  for  several  ages  God's 
true  and  faithful  people  were  almost  universally  in  an 
unbaptized  and  unchurched  state  ;  and  if  now  only  that 
small  proportion  of  his  professing  people,  wh'-)  deny  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  and  church.,  are  to  be  accounted  the 
true  church  of  Christ ;  what  then  becomes  of  the  design 
for  v/hich  the  Abrahamic  church  was  formed,  and  of  the 
covenant  provision  v/hich  was  made  for  its  continuance 
throughout  all  generations. 

Can  it,  my  brethren,  be  believed,  that  so  vastly  the 
greater  part  of  God's  most  faithful  and  praying  people, 
of  his  purest  and  most  enlightened  churches,  and  of  his 
most  approved  and  successful  ministers  have  been,  for  so 
many  hundreds  of  years,  in  such  a  state  of  gross  error 
and  wickedness,  as  that  their  baptism,  their  covenant 
I'ows,  their  church  state,  their  ordination  solemnities, 
their  sacred  celebrations  of  the  holy  supper,  and  their 
whole  ecclesiastical  order  and  administration,  have  been 
not  a  mere  nullity  only,  but  a  solemn  mockery  of  God, 
an  offensive  smoke  in  His  nose  !  Can  it  be  believtid  that 
an  utter  renouncement,  a  public  and  solemn  abjuration, 
of  this  baptism,  these  covenant  vows,  this  church  state, 
these  ordination  solemnities,  these  sacred  celebrations 
of  the  holy  supper^  and  all  this  church  order  and  admh> 
istfatiori,  ought  to  be  proclaimed  with  joy  and  exulta- 
tion, as  a  conx^ersion  from  darkness  unto  light  ?  And 
that  he,  who  does  the  most  to  disturb  and  diminish,  to 
disperse  and  overthrow  these  churches  p.nd  ministers, 
does  God  the  greatest  service  ?  No,  my  brethren  :  no 
candid  Christian,  no  judicious  person,  can  believe  it.  It 
is  utterly  incompatible  with  the  great  design  for  v/hich 
the  church  was  instituted;  it  is  repugnant  to  r>.]l  the  re- 
I 


(66     ) 

presentations  of  scripture  respecting  the  church  ;  it  is  di- 
rectly in  the  face  of  the  covenant  promises  of  Jehovah.^ 
And  the  man,  who  could  believe  it,  would  find  but  little 
difficultv  in  believing,  that  the  Bible  is  a  cunningly,  devi- 
sed fable  ;  that  the  Christi"an  church,  with  all  its  institu- 
tions, is  a  gross  imposition  upon  the  world  j  and  that  the 
religion  of  Jesus  is  of  no  higher  origin,  than  that  of  Mo>= 
hammed,  or  of  Brama  ! 

The  fair  and  invincible  conclusion  then  is,  that  sprink- 
ling  or  affusion,  the  mode  of  baptism  practised  in  these 
churches,  is  scriptural  and  valid.  Accordingly  there  is 
nothing  in  the  scriptures  against  it,  but  m.uch,  as  might 
be  shewn,  did  time  permit,  in  favor  of  it. 

We  have  no  evidence  in  the  scriptures,  that,  in  the 
days  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  any  person  was  baptized, 
by  dipping,  or  immersing. 

After  all  the  laborious  and  ostentatious  criticism, 
upon  the  Greek  word  baptizo^  it  still  remains  a  fact,  well 
known  to  all  who  are  versed  in  the  Greek  language,  that" 
the  use  of  that  word  determines  nothing,  in  respect  to 
the  particular  mode,  in  which  water  is  to  be  applied  in 
baptism.  It  is  in  a  variety  of  instances  in  the  Greek 
scriptures,  and  in  other  Greek  writings,  used  to  signify 
a  washing  or  cleansing,  which  was  performed  by  sprink- 
ling  or  pouring  J  and  may  as  properly  signify  sprinkling 
or  pouring,  as  plunging  or  dipping.* 

.  *It  has  been  a  commou  thing  Nvith  the  antipacdobaptists,  to 
speak  very  disrespectfully  of  learning  and  learned  men.  But  of 
late,  one  can  hardly  meet  with  an  antipsdobaptist,  who  is  not 
prepared  to^talk  so  fluently,  and  so  learnedly,  of  the  meaning  of 
Greek  and  Latin  words,  as  almost  to  amaze  one.  Even  the  au- 
thor of  Seven  Sermons,  on  the  Mode  and  Subjects  of  Baptism, 
"  desires  to  thank  God  that  he  knows  the  Greek  as  well  as  anf 
man;"  and  has  two  or  three  Sermons  ahnost  wholly -upon  the 
meaning  of  a  few  Greek  and  l.ixtin  words.  On  thissubject,  how- 
ever, tliongh  from  his  manner  one  might  be  led  tosuppote  it  had 
nsver  before  been  attended  to,  he  has   rothirc.  r,:attr;i;,  -  '■""  ■ 


C   6r   ) 

In  two  or  three  instances  we  read  indeed,  of  their 
going  down  into  the  water  and  coming  up  out  of  the  wa- 
ter. But  the  original  particles  rendered  in  these  instances, 
into^  and  out  of,  are  as  properly,  and  much  more  com- 
monly, rendered  simply  to  and  from.     And  it  is  pai;fic- 

Nothing  but  what  was  furnished  to  his  hands  by  Dr.  Gill,  and 
other  anabaptist  writers  ;  and  nothing  but  what  has  been  re- 
peatedly and  unanswerably  answered.  He  asserts  riiuch  ;  but 
proves  very  little.  And  yet  with  an  authoritative  air,  but  little  be- 
coming a  Christian  minister,  he  requires  us  all  to  submit  to 
his  assertions,  on  pain  of  being  placed  at  the  ban  q£  the  kingdom 
of  Christ  .        ■ 

The  word  ba/ittzo,'^s  conceded  on  all  hands,  signifies  io  ivash. 
If  it  be  said,  that  sprinkling  or  affusion  is  not  washing  ;  it  ma.y> 
aiBO,  with  equal  pertinency,  be  said,  that  dipping  is  not  washing. 
If,  in  reply,  it  be  said,  that  dipping  is  one  mode  in  which  wash= 
ir.g  is  performed  ;  it  may,  in  i-ejoinder,  be  said,  so  also  is 
sprinkling  or  affusion,  one  mode  in  which  wasTiing  is  performed  ; 
and  that,  too,  the  mode  in  which  the  scriptures  most  commonly 
represent  ceremonial  and  spiritual  washings.  It  was  by  sprink- 
ling clean  nvater  upon  them,  and  not  by  dipping  them  in  water, 
that  God's  people  were  to  bs  so  effectually  washed,  as  from  ail 
{heir  Jilthiness,  and  from,  all  their  idols,  to  be  cleansed.  It  is  by 
the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  not  by  being  dipped 
in  v.,  that  believers  are  so  effectually  washed,  'as  to  be  admit- 
ted to  the  holy  presence  and  kingdom  of  the  livmg  God. 

It  is  important  to  be  remembered,  that  when  words  are  used 
in  reference  to  divine  institutions,  and  to  spiritual  things,  they 
have  -an  appropriate  meaning,  which  can  never  be"  determined 
from  the  meaning  which  they  have  in  their  common  use. 

The  Greek  wo^'d  deihnon,  i-endered  supper,  in  common  use, 
sigr-ified  a  feast,  or  a  common  meal ;  yet,  in  the  sacrament  ofth© 
supper,  we  suppose  it  to  be  sufficient  to  eat  a  very  small  piece  of 
bread,  and  to  drink  but  very  little  of  a  cup  of  wine.  But  from 
the  ordinary  meaning  of  the  word  deipfion,  it  might  be  as  prop- 
erly, and  as  strpngly  argued,  ihat  those  who  have  only  eaten  a 
small  piece  of  bread,  and  tasted  of  a  little  wine,  have  not  supped, 
agreeably  to  the  institution  of  the  Lord's  supper  ;  as  from  the  or- 
dinary meaniag  of  the  word  baptizo,  {nsiash,  not  inimerse'\  it  can 
be  argued,  that  those  who  have  only  been  sprinkled  have  not 
been  laashed,  or  baptized,  agrseably  to  the  institution  of  bap- 
tism. And  should  any  zealous  Christians  thmk  it  necessary 
to  make  literally  a  feasc,  or  a  full  mejj.  at  the  Lord's  table  ;  ther 
might  with  as  much  propriety,  and  as  much  of  the  Christian 
spirit,  seperate  themselves  from  the  communion  of  those  who  only 
partake  of  a  little  bread  and  wine,  and  charge  them  with  refus- 
ing to  keep  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord  ;  as  those,  who  think  it 
necessary  to  be  plunged  all  ever  in  water,  can  separate  tliem  • 
selves  from  the  communion  of  those,  who  have  only  been  baptized 
by  sprinkling,  and  charge  them  with  not  keeping  the  ordiaancfr 
jt  the  Lord. 


(     63     ) 

dlarly  to  be  remembered,  that,  when  they  vrcnt  down  to 
the  water,  or  into  the  water,  it  is  not,  in  »  single  instance, 
said  how  they  were  there  baptized,  whether  by  dipping, 
or  by  sprinkling.  Will  any  person,  then,  of  intelligence 
and  candor,  alledge  the  passages,  now  in  view,  as  con- 
taining the  least  real  evidence  in  favor  of  imniersion  ? 

Upon  a  candid  and  attentive  consideration  of  the 
several  accqunts  of  baptisms,  recorded  in  the  scriptures,  I 
think  it  will  appear,  that  those  baptisms  were  performed 
in  the  most  easy  and  convenient  mode. 

To  accommodate  the  people,  who  flocked  by  hun- 
dreds and  by  thousands  to  his  baptism,  which,  however, 
was  not  the  Christian  baptism,*  John  chose,  for  the  scene 

*That  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism,  is  evident 
from  many  considerations,  a  few  of  which  only,  can  be  briefly 
suggested. 

1.  John  did  not  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Ghost.     j1c(s  xix.  2>  3,  4. 

2.  Persons  who  had  received  John's  baptism  v/ere  afterwards 
baptized  with  the  Christian  baptism.     Ibid,  verse  5. 

3.  John  Tvas  not  a  Christian  apostle,  but  a  minister  under  the 
Mosaiclav/.  He  was  sent  to  p.re/iare  the  ivay  of  the  Lord.,  and 
preacbed  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven^  or  Christian  dispensation, 
luaa  at  hand,  not  that  it  was  already  come. 

4.  If  John's  baptism  were  Christian  baptism,  then  the  great 
body  ©f  the  Jewish  nation  were  Christians  ;  for  there  went  out  to 
Jiiiji  Jeru-tclern.,  and  allJudea,  and  all  the  region  round  about 
Jordan,  and  ivere  bafiiized  of  hiy^  in,  or  at,  Jordan. 

But  if  John's  baptism  were  not  Christian  baptism,  then  thebap- 
tisi»  of  Christ  by  John,  in  whate^'er  mode  admanisteredj  wa»  no 
example  for  Christians.  ' 

Christ's  baptism  was  designed  regularly  to  introduce  him  into 
his  priestly  office,  according  to  the  law  of  Moses  ;  under  which 
he  commenced  his  ministry,  and  whick  it  behoved  him  to  fulfil. 

Dees  not  the  idea,  then,  cf  following  Christ  into  the  water, 
v/hich  has,  unhappily,  so  powerful  an  effect  upon  many  mhids, 
partake  very  much  of  the  v.ture  of  delusion  and  superstition  ? — 
There  is  no  evidence  ths:t  Christ  was  buried  in  water  ;  and  even 
if  he  were,  his  baptism  v/asof  an  import  very  different  from  thp.t 
of  the  baptism  which  ha  afterwards  instituted  for  his  followers. 
Are  v/e  to  go  into  the  water,  under  the  idea  of  following  Chriit — 
into  his  priestly  c£ce  1 — Ought  we  to  call  this  delusion  and  su- 
perstici')n  ;  or  ought  we  to  call  it  thehtight  of  impiety  ?  We. 
should  be  extremely  sorry  to  wound  a  single  tender  mind  ?  but 
v;?  consider  it   cf  high  iinp-nrtance,  that  tender  minds  should  b^ 


% 


(     69 -j 

*f  his  ministry,  a  situation  at  Enon,  and  another  by  the 
river  Jordan,  where  the  multitudes  and  their  beasts  might 
find  water  for  their  refreshment ;  and,  when   assembled 
upon  the  banks  of  the  Jordan,  the  most  convenient  way 
would  be  for  them  to  go  down  to  the  brink  of  the  water, 
and  there  be  l^aptized  by  affusion  or  sprinkling.     But  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,when  three  thousand  were  baptized 
in  a  very  short  time,  they   were  at   the   temple,   in  th& 
midst  of  Jerusalem  :  where  the  most  convenient,  if  not 
the  only,  way  would  be  to  have  water  brought  in  a  bason, 
or  some  other  vessel,  and  baptize  them  in  the   same 
mode.    As  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  were  travelling  on  the 
road  from  Jerusalem  to  Gaza,  where,  as  travellers  assure 
us,  there  was  no  river,  or  body  of  water,  sufficient  for 
the  purpose  of  immersion  ;  the  way  most  convenient  for 
them  was  to  alight  from  the  chariot,  and  step   down   to 
the  small  rivulet  which  presented,  and  there   solemnize 
the  ordinance.     But  as  Paul  was  at  the  house  of  Judas 
in  Damascus,  and  as  Cornelius  and  the  Jailor  were    at 
home  ;  the  most  conveirient  way  for  them,  and  indeed, 
the  only  way  for  Paul  and  the  Jailor,  was  to  have  water 
brought,  and  to  be  baptized  in  their  respective  houses. 

In  HO  single  instance,  is  there  the  least  intimation  of 
leaving  the  place  of  worship,  wherever  it  might  be,  and 
going  away  to  a  river,  or  a  pond,  for  the  purpose  of  bap- 
tism ;  and,  therefore,  for  such  a  practice  there  is  no  scrip- 
ture warrant. 

The  two  passages  of  the  apostle,  in  v/hich  the  term 
buriedy  is  used  in  connexion  with  the  term,  i^T^ifw??:,  deter- 
mine nothing,  as  I  have  heretofore  shewn  at  large,*  and 

guarded  against  mistaking  the  glare  of  error  for  the  light  of  truth, 
ani  the  delusive  impulses,  of  their  passions,  for  the  guiding  influ- 
ence of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

For  a  more  comfilete  view  of  the  tnlnhtrij  of  Jokn^  see  Mccs^ 
Miss.  Magazine.    Vol.  iv.  Nos,  i  ic  5. 

*  See  Mass.  Miss.  Mag-azine.—'*'  ^  •■  •  • 


(     5^0     ) 

as  has  often  been  shewn,  in  respect  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism. They  offer  no  more  reason  why,  at  the  time  of  our 
baptism,  vre  should  ht  buried,  than  why  we  should  be 
planted,  and  circumcisedy  and  crucified.  They  describe 
the  effects  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  but  have 
no  respect  to  the  mode  of  the  external  ordinance. 

As  baptism  is  not  designed  to  commemorate  the  death 
of  Christ,  which  is  the  special  design  of  the  holy  supper ; 
but  to  represent  the  application  of  his  blood  for  our  jus- 
tification, or  the  renovation  of  the  heart,  by  the  gracious 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  is  it  not  plain,  that  sprink- 
ling is  a  mode,  much  more  properly  significant,  than  dip- 
ping ?  In  reference  to  tke  application  of  the  blood  of 
Christ,  we  never  read  ofdipping,  or  immersing;  but  con- 
stantly of  sprinkling  or  pouring.  Te  are  come  to  the  blood 
©/"sprinkling.  j4/2f/ sprinkxing  of  the  blood  of  Christ. 
Ixvill  POUR  OUT  my  Shirit  upon  all  flesh.  JzuillsvniUKLE, 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean.  So  shall  he 
(Christ)  SPRINKLE,  not  dip,  mant^nations.  Such  are  the 
uniform  representations  of  scripture,) 

And,  my  brethren,  is  it  not  more  congenial  with  the 
simplicity  of  the  gospel,  is  it  not  more  compatible  with 
every  idea  of  propriety  and  decencv,  is  it  not  more  con- 
ducive to  religious  order  and  solemnity,  to  perform  the 
sacred  rite  of  baptism  in  the  house  of  God,  where  he 
has  appointed  in  a  more  special  manner  to  meet  his 
church,  and^ivhere  the  most  solemn  rites  of  his  woi-ship 
are  performed  ;  than  to  leave  these  hallowed  courts,  and 
this  impressive  scene  of  silent  solemnity  and  devotion, 
and  with  great  inconvenience,  great  parade,  and,  per- 
haps, great  tumult,  go  abroad  for  the  administratipn 
of  the  ordinance,  to  a  river  or  a  pond.*^  .      *■. 


*  So  far  as  the  dispute  between  us  and  the  anabaptists,    with 
respect  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  is  of  importance,  it  is  important 


(     71     ) 

6.  It  appears  from  our  subject,  that  there  is  a  great 
and  important  duty  devolving  on  the  church,  in  respect 
to  their  baptised  children. 

Though  baptized  persons,  previously  to  their  taking, 
personally,  the  vows  of  the  covenant  upon  them,  are  nei- 
ther entitled  to  the  privileges,  nor  subject  to  the  disci- 
pline, of  the  church,  as  members  in  complete  standing  ; 
yet,  as  the  children  of  the  covenant^  their  relation  to  the 
church  is  saered,  and  the  correspondent  duty  is  great. 

The  parents,  as  individuals,  have  selemnly  given  them 
up  to  God ;  and  engaged  to  bring  them  up  for  him  in 
holy  nurture  and  admonition.  This  is  a  most  solemn  en- 
gagement, and  should  certainly  be  felt  as  such  by  every 
parent  in  covenant.  By  their  covenant  vows  parents  are 
sacredly  bound,  believingly  to  trust  in  the  promise  of 
God  respecting  their  children ;  daily  to  bear  thepi  on 
their  hearts  at  the  throne  of  grace,  praying  with  them  and 

chat  the  point  in  dispute  should  be  distinctly  holden  in  view„ 
The  question  properly  between  us  is  not  this,  whether  any  were 
baptized  in  the  days  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  by  immersion  or 
dipping  ;  but  it  is  precisely  this,  whether  immersion  or  dipping 
be  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism.  Could  it  even  be  proved,  as 
however  it  cannot  be,  that  some  were  baptized  in  the  apostles' 
days  by  immersion  ;  it  would  avail  nothing  against  our  practice, 
unless  it  could  be  proved,  that  none  were  baptized  in  any  other 
way.  For  if  any  were  baptized  in  any  other  way,  then  immer- 
sion is  not  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism.  Nay,  if  it  were  even 
in  the  most  extreme  cases  only,  such  as  those  of  sickness  and  im- 
prisonment, that  baptism  was  administered  in  the  way  of  sprink- 
ling or  affusion,  the  argument  would  remain  tke  same :  for  if  iu 
any  case  whatever,  baptism  might  be  administered  by  sprinkling 
or  affusion  ;  then  immersion  is  not  essential  to  the  ordinance. 

But  if  immersion  be  not  essential  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
as  we  have  abundant  evidence  that  it  is  not ;  is  it  not  a  soiema 
affair,  that  the  anabaptists  take  it  upon  themselves  to  declare  our 
baptism  to  be  no  baptism,  and  our  churches  to  be  no  churches, 
thus  unbaptizing  and  unchurching  the  great  body  of  the  Christian 
world  ;  that  they  utterly  separate  themselves  from  our  commun- 
ion, thus  making  an  unwarrantable  schism  in  the  body  of  Christ  • 
and  that  they  place  such  a  stress  upon  baptism  in  their  mode,  as 
to  make  it  the  subject  on  which  to  display  their  greatest  zeal., 
Uius  making  people  believe,  iu  too  ir.ajiy  instances,  that  going 


(     '^2     ) 

for  tiiern ;  faithfully  to  instruct  them,  as  they  become  ca- 
pable of  receiving  instruction,  in  the  doctrines  and  pre- 
cepts of  the  gospel;  vigilantly  to  restrain  them  from  vice 
and  guard  them  from  error  ;  perseveringly  to  use  with 

into  the  water  will  answrer  all  the  purposes  of  their  present  com- 
frft,  and  of  their  eternal  salvatioi.. 

We  are  told,  indeed,  that  there  is  07ie  baptism  ;  and  this  we 
believe.  J'or  b-g,  one  spirit  arc  we  all  bafifrzed  in'o  one  bo- 
dy, ivhether  Jews  or  Getifiles,  'ivhcther  bond  or  free.  Will  the 
anabaptists  undertake  seriously  to  say,  that  in  assert'Tij  one  bap- 
tism^ the  apostle  had  reference  to  the  mode,  in  which  water  is  to 
be  applied  in  the  external  ordinance  ?  Holding  their  mode  to  be 
essential  to  the  ordinance  is  it  not  incumbent  on  them  to  prove, 
from  the  plain  'word  of  God,  .that  the  apostles  baptized  on]y  by 
immersion,  and  that  they  immersed  exactly  in  the  present  ana- 
baptist manner  ?  This  they  never  can  prove. 

"  The  ancient  Christians,"  siys  Dr.  Wall,  "  when  they  were 
'^'baptized  by  immersion,  ivere  all  baptized  naked;  whether 
'*  they  were  men,  women  or  children.  Vossius  has  collected  sev- 
*'  eral  proofs  of  this  ;  which  I  shall  omit,  because  it  is  a  clear 
*'  case."  It  is,  moreover,  a  clear  case,  that  when  they  were  bap- 
tized by  immersion,  they  were  immersed  three  times  ;  once  in  the 
name  of  each  of  the  divine  Persons  of  the  holy  Ti  inity.  At  their 
baptism,  also,  they  were  signed  with  the  cress  ;  and  on  coming 
out  of  the  water,  were  clad  in  white  robts^  and  fed  with  a  n-Ax' 
ture  of  honey  and  milk.  Let  it  not  be  said,  that  this  was  the  tiian- 
ner  of  popish  immersiors:  It  was  the  manner  of  the  earliest 
immersions  of  which  we  have  an  account.  And  that  it  was  the 
common  if  not  the  uniform,  manner  of  the  eaily  immersions  is  as 
certain,  as  that  any  were  baptized  by  immersion  in  early  times. 
How  then  can  the  anabaptists  be  sure,  that  their  manner  of  bap- 
tizing fay  immersion  is  scriptural  and  valid?  Why  da  they  hot 
baptize  in  the  manner  of  those  who  baptized  by  immersion  in  for- 
mer times  ?  Is  it  for  the  sake  of  decency  and  convenience,  tkat 
they  have  so  fa^  departed  from  the  manner  of  the  first  immer- 
sions ?  Are  they  not  aware,  that  if  the  mode  be  so  essential  to 
the  ordinance  as  they  contend,  either  their  immersions  are  not 
valid,  or  '.\)<tfrst  immersions  vv-ere  not  ?  Will  they  say,  that  the 
aiKieat  immersions  were  not  valid,  because  those  who  baptized 
in  that  v/ay,  still  allowed  sprinkling,  or  afFusisn,  to  be  a  valid 
mode  of  baptism  ? 

The  anaDaptists,  say  seme,  have  as  much  scripture  for  their 
node  as  we  iiave  far  ours.  This  is  uothing  to  the  purpose.  Have 
they  s:;ripture  to  prove  that  their  mode,  ani  their  mode  only,  is 
valid  ?     This  is  the  single  question. 

But  i.")  it  not  a  cvos-s  to  go  into  the  water  ?  A  serious  question. 
But  in  reply,  with  the  most  periect  candor  we  ask.  Was  it  a 
cross  to  the  Judaizing  Christians  to  be  circumcised  ?  Is  it  a  cross, 
in  the  Christian  sense,  to  do  any  thing,  which  will  help  to  make 
«  Juir  shew  in  thzf.eah  ?     Gal,  y\,  VU. 


I 


(     73     ) 

tiiem  their  pai-ental  influence  and  authoiity,  as  occasioii 
thayrequire,that  they  may  reverence  the  institutions  of  re- 
ligion, and  regularly  attend,  at  the  most  proper  places,  the 
public  worship  of  God,  and  such  other  means  of  relig- 
ious instruction  as  may  with  propriety  and  convenience  be 
attended  ;  and,  in  a  word,  so  to  command  their  children^ 
and  their  hiusehoids,  after  them,  that  they  shall  keep  the 
way  of  the  Lord  to  do  justice  and  judgment ;  and  that 
God  may  bring  upon  them  all  the  blessings  of  his  covenent. 

The  church,  also,  as  a  body,  are  bound  under  solemn 
engagements,  respecting  all  the  children  of  the  church. 
They  have  solemnly  covenanted  with  God,  and  with  each 
other,  to  exercise  mutual  watchfulness,  and  to  recipro- 
cate every  faithful  and  brotherly  office.  They  are  en- 
gaged, particularly,  to  watch  over  each  other  in  respect 
to  the  duty,  which  they  severally  owe  to  their  children ; 
and  in  an  affectionate  and  Christian  manner  to  offer  such 
advice,  admonition,  and  reproof,  as  occasion  may  re- 
quire, and  wisdom  direct ;  and  era  the  ground  of  God's 
gracious  promise  to  the  church,  earnestly  to  pray  with- 
out ceasing,  that  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  may  be  poured 
out  upon  them,  and  his  blessing  upon  their  off-;pring. 

How  interesting,  my  brethren,  how  vastly  important 
is  all  this  duty.  Did  professors  and  churches,  generally, 
but  feel  it  as  they  ought,  and  were  they  but  faithful,  how 
different  from  what  it  now  is  would  be  the  aspect  and 
the  real  state  of  the  Christian  world  ?  How  soon  would 
the  hearts  of  the  fathers  he  turned  unto  the  children^  and 
the  hearts  of  the  children  unto  the  fathers  ;  and  the  Lord 
make  ready  a  people,  a  numerous  people,  prepared  for 
his  praise  P  How  soon  ^vould  the  church  at  large  appear 
like  a  watered  garden  ;  and  the  children  of  the  church 
spring  up  as  atnong  the  grass,  as  xvillozvs  by  the  zcater 
courses  ?  How  soon  would  it  cease  to  be  a  question 
•vhether  there  be  anv  propriety  or  profit  in  the  baptism 
K 


C     74     ) 

of  children  ?  How  soon  would  all  the  objections,  and 
cavils,  and  reproaches,  respecting  infant  baptism,  be  ef- 
fectually refuted  and  silenced ;  and  all  the  truly  cotisci- 
entioua  and  pious  of  our  brethren,  who  oppose  the  insti- 
tution, be  constrained  to  acknowledge,  and  renounce 
their  error,  and  come  over  to  the  true  ground  of  God's 
gracious  and  everlasting  covenant ;  and  there  be,  in  this 
respect,  but  onefold^  as  there  is  but  one  Shepherd!  But 
alas !  my  brethren,  how  little  in  general  do  professors 
and  churches  feel,  and  how  little  do  they  practise,  of  tkc 
great  and  interesting  duty,  which  they  owe  to  the  chil- 
dren of  the  covenant  ?  And  what  vast  advantage  does 
their  neglect  in  this  particular,  afford  to  their  adversaries 
to  be  turned  against  them  ! 

7.  Our  subject  leads  us  to  admiring  views  of  the  infi- 
nite grace  and  wisdom,  which  God  has  manifested,  in 
the  covenant  established  with  his  church. 

Innuite  grace  was  manifested  in  God's  promise  to 
Abraham  to  be  a  God  to  him ;  and  the  same  infinite  grace 
is  manifested  in  the  same  promise  to  every  true  believer. 
Abraham  and  all  v/ho  are  blessed  with  him,  might  justly 
have  been  left  as  children  of  wrath,  utterly  to  perish  in 
a  state  of  alienation  from  God  :  And  that  they  v/ere  not 
thus  left  is  to  be  wholly  ascribed  to  free  and  sovereign 
grace.  Infinite  grace  and  wisdom  were  manifested  in 
establishing  a  visible  church  in  the  world,  with  such  pro- 
vision as  to  insure  its  perpetuity  throughout  all  genera- 
tions. Had  no  such  establishment  been  instituted,  what, 
my  brethren,  must  have  been  the  moral  state  of  the 
world  ?  Where  would  have  appeared  the  light  of  religion.: 
How  would  have  been  upholden  the  worship  of  God  ?  In 
what  way  would  the  lively  oracles  have  been  received, 
authenticated,  preserved,  ac  d  transmitted,  down  the  lapse 
»f  succes^iive  generations  ?   How  would  the  way  have 


(     75     ) 

been  prepared  for  the  coming  of  Messiah,  and  for  the 
accomplishment  of  the  great  purposes  of  his  coming? 
And  how  would  the  blessing  of  Abraham^  through  faith 
in  Messiah,  have  come  on  th:  Gentiles  ?  A  moment's  at- 
tention to  these,  and  other  similar  enquiries,  caimot  fail 
to  raise  in  your  minds  a  grateful  and  devout  admiration 
of  God's  infinite  grace  and  wisdom,  manifested  in  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  visible  and  perpetual  church  in  the  v/orld. 

•Infinite  grace  and  wisdom  are  manifest,  in  connecting 
children  with  their  parents  in  the  covenant  of  xhe  church. 
It  is  not  on  account  of  any  thing  meritcrious  in  the  faith 
and  fidelity  of  the  parent,  that  God  engages  to  be  a  God 
to  his  children ;  but  it  is  owing  entirely  to  his  holy  and 
sovereign  pleasure,  that  his  covenant  is  thus  graciously 
ordered.  And  though  he  has  been  pleased  to  connect 
children  with  their  parents,  in  his  gracious  covenant ;  ret 
as  it  is  only  on  account  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
and  through  faith  in  him,  that  he  has  mercy  on  the  parent, 
and  is  a  God  to  him  ;  so  it  is  only  on  account  of  the  righ- 
teousness of  Christ,  and  through  faith  in  him,  that  he 
will  have  mercy  on  the  children,  and  be  a  God  unto  them. 
But  in  the  acomplishment  of  his  wise  and  gracious  pur- 
poses, God  is  pleased  to  employ  human  means  ;  and  what 
more  proper  means  could  he  employ,  in  respect  to  the 
"salvation  of  children,  than  the  faith  and  prayers,  the  coun- 
sels and  instructions,  the  cautions  and  admonitions,  cf 
their  pious  parents  ?  Who  should  care  so  much  for  chil- 
dren as  their  parents  ?  Who  can  be  under  so  good  ad- 
vantages for  access  to  their  opening  minds  and  to  their 
hearts,  as  their  parents  ?  Who  should  be  so  likely  daily 
to  pray  with  them  and  for  them,  patiently  and  persever- 
jngly  to  counsel  and  instruct  them,  and  v.ith  unceasing 
and  tender  solicitude,  to  watch  for  their  good,  as  their 
parents  ?  How  high,  then,  and  haw  grateful,  my  breth- 
ren, should  be  our  admiratic  n  of  the  grace  and  the  wis- 


(   re   ) 

liom  of  God,  in  so  ordering  his  covenant,  as  to  give  the 
greatest  encouragement  to  parental  faithfulness ;  and  thus 
to  engage  all  the  tenderest  energies  of  the  parental  heart 
in  aid  of  religious  duty  ?  How  vast  are  our  obligations 
arising  from  this  part  of  his  gracious  covenant ;  and 
whafmonsters  of  unbelief  and  ingratitude  must  we  be, 
if  we  either  deny,  refuse,  pr  neglect  the  grace,  go  kindly 
offered  to  us  for  our  children  ? 

Infinite  grace  and  wisdom  are  manifested,  in  fine,  m 
making  the  church  the  grand  repository  of  blessings  for 
all  the  families  of  the  earth.  The  great  and  precious 
promise,  which  was  made  to  Abraham,  and  which,  in 
succeeding  ages,  was  so  often  repeated,  and  so  clearly 
^nfolded,  that  in  him  and  his  seed,  all  the  kindreds  of  the 
world  should  be  blessed  ;  is  eminently  calculated  to  sup- 
port and  enliven  the  hopes  of  the  church,  in  the  darkest 
times  ;  to  lead  her  to  take  a  deep  and  lively  interest  in 
all  the  concerns  of  the  vrorld  ;  to  give  enlargement  to  her 
desires,  and  fervency  to  her  prayers,  for  the  effusions  of 
the  Spirit  of  grace  :,  and  to  impart  spirit  to  her  exertions, 
and  efucacy  to  her  measures  for  the  spread  of  the  gospel^ 
and  the  extension  of  Messiah's  kingdom. 

Indeed,  my  brethren,  the  more  we  contemplate  God's 
everlasting  covenant  with  his  church,  the  more  shall  we 
see  in  it  to  admire  of  matchless  wisdom  and  grace.  It 
was  in  a  particular  viev,'  of  this  covenant,  that  the  apostle, 
in  grateful  admiration,  exclaimed ;  0  the  depths  of  the 
riches  both  of  the  xvisdom  and  the  knowledge  of  God;  how 
unsearchable  are  his  Jud^-ments  <snd  his  pjmjs  past  find-* 
ing  out ! 

8.  From  all  v,hich  has  been  offered  on  this  subject,  it 
appears  to  be  a  great  duty,  sacredly  incumbent  on  those 

who  are  set  foj-  the  defence  of  the  gospel,  and  upon,  all^ 


(  yy  ) 

^rmly  to  tnalntain  the  ground  and  principles  of  God's 
ipracious  and  everlasting  covenant. 

God  forbid,  my  brethren,  that  in  respect  to  any  denom- 
ination or  sect  of  professing  Christians,  we  should  ever 
display  any  thing  like  a  spirit  of  persecution,  or  even  of 
uncharitableness.  No  ;  in  so  far  as  they  discover  an  ad- 
herence to  the  truth,,a  regard  for  true  religion,  and  a  zeal 
for  God  according  to  knowledge,  we  will  approve  and 
love  them ;  but  wherein  they  depart  from  the  truth,  do 
wrongtothe  cause  of  religion,  abd  display  the  unhallowed 
spirit  of  party,  we  will  bear,  as  we  are  enabled  and  have 
occasion,  our  testimony  against  foem.  At  least,  we  will 
use  all  proper  and  Christian  means,  to  guard  ourselves 
and  others  against  embracing  the  same  error,  commit- 
ting the  same  wrong,  or  displaying  the  same  spirit. — . 
This  is  no^  persecution ;  it  is  only  the  part  of  Christian 
fidelity  and  kindness. 

Any  cause  or  doctrine  which  shrinks  from  the  light  of 
fair  investigation,  or  will  not  endure  the  test  of  fair  scrip- 
ture argument,  certainly  cannot  be  the  cause  of  truth,  nor 
a  doctrine  according  to  godliness.  And  those  who  v/ill 
be  offended  or  hurt  by  a  fair  and  candid  erdiibition  of 
argument,  and  vindication  of  sentiments  in  opposition  tc 
their  own,  give  the  greatest  evidence  that  they  are  not 
contending,  or  concerned,  for  the  cause  of  truth,  but  only 
for  the  cause  of  party. 

Merely  a  denial  of  the  exterr;al  rite  of  baptism  to  the 
infant  seed  of  believers,  though  in  itself  exceedingl"  re- 
prehensible, as  it  is  a  denial  of  an  important  divine  in- 
stitution, is,  however,  but  a  small  part  of  the  error  of  our 
antipxdobaptist  brethren.  They  deny  God's  everlasting 
covenant  of  superabounding  grace,  the  grand  charter  of 
the  inheritance  and  privileges  of  hi.s  people,    and  the 


C   rs   ) 

sfttirce  of  blessings  to  all  the  kindreds  of  tlie  earth.  They 
deny  the  church  of  God  which  was  formed  in  the  family 
of  Abraham,  and  which,  under  different  dispensations, 
amidst  the  various  commotions  and  changes  of  the  worW, 
has  been  gradually  rising,  and  is  destined  still  to  rise,  ia 
beauty  and  in  glory,  until  it  become  the  perfection  of 
beauty^  and  the  joy  of  the  universe.  The  grand  pro- 
vision, which,  in  his  infinite  wisdom  anc  grace,  Jeho- 
vah has  been  pleas-ed  to  make  for  the  preservation  of  a 
righteous  seed  on  the  earth,  and  for  the  maintenance  and 
promotion,  from  age  to  age,  of  his  cause  and  kingdom 
in  this  hostile  world,  th^y  not  only  deny,  but  openly  con- 
temn. They  deny  and  contemn  the  grace,  which  is  so 
kindly  and  so  condescendingly  offered  for  tlie  spiritual 
renovation,  and  everlasting  salvation,  of  the  seed  of  the 
church.  The  great  body  of  God's  visible  professing  peo- 
ple, even  the  most  enlightened  and  the  most  faithful,  for 
hundreds  of  years,  they  utterly  set  aside,  as  constituting 
no  part  of  the  true  church  of  Christ,  but  only  a  part  of  an- 
tichrist. All  the  covenant  vows,  all  the  baptisms  both-  of 
infants  and  adults,  all  the  celebrations  of  the  holy  supper, 
all  the  ordination  solemnities,  all  the  order  and  adminis- 
tration of  the  great  body  of  the  churches,  for  hundreds 
of  years,  they,  in  effect,  set  at  nought,  and  represent  as 
no  better  than  a  solemn  mockery  of  God.*  The  strong 
bond  of  connexion  between  the  old  and  Mew  testament 
scriptures,  they,  in  a  manner,  destroy.  The  beautiful 
plan  of  divine  wisdom  and  grace,  exhibited  in  the  cove- 
nant, they  exceedingly  mar  j  and  the  mystical  body  of 
Christ,  declared  in  his  word  to  be  one,  they  rend  in  twain ! 

*  At  Sedgwick.,  in  April  last,  baptisms  were  administered,  a 
chui'ch  was  fr/iTTicd,  and  a  minister  was  ordained,  as  if  before 
there  In^.d  been  no  baptisms  administered,  no  church  established,, 
and  no  minister  ordained  in  the  place  !  Thus,   in  the  face  of  the 


Is  there  not  In  all  this,  my  brethren,  very  great  error, 
and  verv  great  wrong  ?  Is  there  not  in  all  this,  such  error, 
and  such  wrong,  as  must  be  exceedingly  injurious  to  the 
cause  of  religion,  and  deeply  wounding  to  Christ  in  the 
members  of  his  body  ?  If  so  ;  is  it  not  important^  that 
proper  and  Christian  means  be  employed  to  maintain  the 
cause  of  truth,  and  the  instituted  order  of  the  kingdom 
of  Christ;  and  to  diffuse,  on  these  interesting  subjects, 
such  light  as  shall  tend  to  further  the  great  purposes  of 
God's  gracious  and  everlasting  covenant,  to  promote  the 
purity,  unity  and  peace  of  his  churches,  and  to  confirm 
the  faith  of  his  believing  people  in  his  precious  promises 
to  them  «md  their  children?  Has  there  not  been  in  these 
respects,  a  very  great  and  a  very  faulty  deficiency  ?  And 
for  this  deficiency  are  not  our  churches,  in  the  righteous 
providence  of  God,  most  severely  tried,  and  most  sol- 
emnly reproved  ? 

But  my  brethren,  while  we  contend  earnestly  for  the 
faith,  once  delivered  to  the  saints,  let  us  do  it  in  the 
spirit  of  Christian  meekness  and  candor.  Let  no  wrath, 
nor  clamor,  nor  evil  speaking,  ever  be  known  among  us. 
While  we  differ  from  our  brethren  in  some  interesting 
points,  and  firmly  maintain,  in  opposition  to  them,  our 
scriptural  views  of  God's  gracious  covenant :  let  us  cor- 
dially unite  with  them  in  support  of  the  truths,  in  which 
we  are  agreed,  exercise  towards  them  the  most  perfect 
kindness  and  charity,  and  devoutly  rejoice  in  whatever  of 
the  true  work  of  divine  grace  may  be  discovered  among 
them. 

O,  nnay  the  set  time  to  favor  Zion  come,  when  her 

ivatchmen  shall  lift  up  their  voiccy  and  with  tIieir 

VOICE  TOGETHER  SHALL  SING,  SEEING  EYE  TO  EYE  ;    and 

when  all  the  people  of  the  Lord  shall  have  one  heart, 
AND  ONE  WAY,  that  they  may  fear  before  him  for  ever  ^  for 
the  good  of  them]  and  of  their  children  after  them. 

AMEN. 


SERIOUS  AND  CANDID 

LETTERS 

TO    THE 

REV.  THOMAS  BALDWIN,  D.  D. 

OA*  HIS  BOOK, 

ENTITLED 

*'THE  BAPTISM  OF  BELIEVERS  ONLY, 

AND   THE 

PARTICULAR  COMMUNION 

OF  THE 

BAPTIST  CHURCHES, 
EXPLAINED  AND  VINDICATED." 


BY  SAMUEL'-'WORCESTER,  A.  M. 


Ho'v  forcible  are  right  words  !  but  what  doth  your  arguing  prove  ' 

Job. 


SALEM: 
PKINTED  BY  HAVEN  POOL,  FOR  THE  AUTHOR. 

1807. 


DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS,  TO  WIT  : 

^^I^TreE-  IT  REMEMBERED,  that  otlWie  eighteenth  day 
^^^Jll)  jf  April,  in  the  thirty  first  year  of  the  Independence 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  Samuel  Worcester,  of  the 
said  District,  has  deposited  in  this  Office  the  Title  of  a  Book, 
the  Right  whereof  he  claims  as  Author,  in  the  words  following^ 
to  tuit : 

"Serious   an-^.  candid  Letters  to  the  Rev.  Thomas  Baldwin, 
D.  D.  on  his  Bock  intitled,  '  The  Baptism  of  Believers  only,  and 
the  particular  communion  of  the  Baptist  Churche-j  explained 
and  vindicated.'    By  Satjuel  Worcester,  A.  M. 
How  forcible  are  right  words  1  but  what  doth  your  arguing  prove  ? 

Job." 
Tnconformity  totheAct  of  the  C'^ngress  of  the  United  States, 
intitled,  "An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  seeur* 
ing  the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and 
Proprietors  of  £,ach  Copies,  during  the  Times  therein  mentioned;" 
and  also  to  an  Act  intitled,  "An  Act  supplementary  to  an  Act^ 
intitled,  An  Act  for  the  Encouragement  of  Learning,  by  secur- 
ing the  Copies  of  Maps,  Charts  and  Books,  to  the  Authors  and 
Proprietors  of  such  Copies  during  the  times  therein  mentioned  ; 
and  extending  the  Benefits  thereof  to  the  Arts  of  Designing, 
Engraving  and  Etching  Historical  and  other  Prints." 

\\T^T  T  T  A  AT  c  cTj  A  T^r  C  Cicrk  of  the  District 
WILLL\M  b.  SHA^\ ,  ^  ,f  MLachmetts. 


i 


LETTERS. 


LETTER    L 


REV.  1st  DEAR  SIR, 

.BOUT  sixteen  years  ago,  my  beloved  'orother,  cf 
Thornton,  had  occasion  to  address  to  ycu,  from  the 
press,  a  "  Friendly  Letter,"  with  reference  to  a  publi- 
cation of  your's  on  the  subject  of  close,  or  '*■  Particular 
Communion."  "The  Letter,"  owing  to  some  casualty, 
or  mistake,  failed  of  reaching  you,  directly  from  him. 
Cop'ies  of  it  however,  at  his  particular  instance,  M^ere 
forwarded  to  you,  by  two  of  his  brothers  ;  with  an  apo- 
logy for  the  failure,  and  a  respectful  assurance,  that  it 
v,a£  not  to  be  imputed  to  any  culpable  inattention  on  his 
part.  But  the  apology,  it  appears,  unhappily  did  not 
succeed  to  conciliate  your  forgiveness  :  for,  in  your  re- 
ply to  the  Friendly  Letter,  you  were  particular  to  let  it 
be  i:nderstood,  that  you  had  "not  the  pleasure  of  ac- 
knowledging his  politeness  in  sending  ycu  a  copy." 

With  this  proof  before  me,  that  you  are  not  inatten- 
tive to  these  points  cf  courtesy,  I  can  by  no  means  im- 
pute it  to  any  fault  of  yours,  that  "  I  have  not  the  plea- 
sure of  acknowledging"  the  receipt  from  \ou,  or  even 
fi-om  vcur  "  genexous  brothers,"  of  vour  recent  publica- 
tion, in  which  you  have  condescended  to  honor  me  with 
a  liberal  share  of  your  notice. 

Your  book,  however,  I  have  been  so  happy,  as  other- 
wise pretty  seasonably  to  obtain,  and  have  perused  it, 
as  I  trust,  v.'ith  candour  and  attention.  Though  I  have 
found  in  it  nothing  material,  of  the  nature  of  argument, 
which  I  have  not  often  seen,  or  heard,  before  ;  and 
ticlhing,   except  your  assumed   oistinc'icn  betv/cen  thr 


4  LETTER    t. 

covenant  of  the  church,  and  the  proinise  first  made  to 
Abraham  at  the  time  of  his  call,  which  has  not  been  re- 
peatedly answered :  yet  candidly  to  review  it  before  the 
public,  will  probably  be  thought  to  devolve  on  me  as  a 
duty.  This  duty  I  shall  endeavour  to  fulfil,  according 
to  the  ability  and  opportunity  given  mc,  in  this,  and  se- 
veral subseqvient  Letters. 

On  the  first  passage  of  my  eye,  over  your  book,  I  ex- 
perienced, I  confess,  not  a  little  disappointment,  in  not 
being  able  to  find  in  it  any  notice  of  mv  brother's  "  Can- 
did Discussion,"  in  answer  to  your  "Brief  Vindication." 
Seeing,  that  you  had  again  published  your  first  piece, 
•with  reference  to  which  his  **•  Friendly  Letter"  was 
written,  and  vour  second  piece,  ^rhich  you  intended  as 
an  ansv/er  to  his  "  Friendly  Letter  ;"  I  certainly  did  ex- 
pect, that  somewhere  in  the  long  Appendix,  subjoined, 
some  mention,  at  least,  would  have  been  found  of  his  last 
reply.  Perhaps  this  expectation  was  unreasonable. 
Unquestionably  it  was  vrith  you  to  determine  what  you 
"would  write  and  publish,  and  what  you  would  not ;  and 
if  you  thought  my  brother's  '"•  Candid  Discussion"  un- 
".vorthy  of  your  notice,  or  if  you  considered  it  unanswer- 
able, 3'ou  certainly  were  not  obliged  to  answer  it. 

To  some,  however,  it  might  have  been  a  satisfaction, 
had  you  condescended  to  acknowledge,  that,  to  what 
you  have  now  published,  as  your  "  Second  Part,"  as 
■well  as  to  your  '*■  First,"  }-ou  had  received  a  reply.  But 
as  you  have  not,  and  as  niany  in  the  world  are  not  al- 
•ways  inclined  to  the  most  favorable  constructions  of 
things  ;  you  will  not  be  surprised,  if  some,  who  have 
read  the  "  Candid  Discussion,"  are  re-ady  to  conclude, 
that  you  chose  to  pass  it  by  in  silence,  because,  as  you 
perceived  it  wouli  be  difficult  to  answer  it,  you  wer^ 
willing  to  give  it  no  further  publicity. 

Tiiat  it  was  not  because  my  brother  did  not  write  with 
catidour,  no  one,  I  beiieye,  v/ho  has  any  acquaintance 
v/ith  him,  or  his  writing.3,  will  be  disposed  to  admit  ; 
for  notwidistanding  anv  implications  to  the  contrary, 
which  appear  in  your  "Second  Part,"  bis  candour  has 
been  acknowledged  on  all  hands.  By  eome  of  tlie  more 
im.partial  and  judicious,  even  of  your  own  denomination, 
it  has,  to  rny  k'noy/ledge,  been  allowed,  that,  in  your 
controversy  with  him,  you  certainly  had  not  the  advan-. 
f:h^Q  in  point  of  candour,  an)-  more  than  in  point  of  ar- 
rument. 


LETTER    I.  5 

This,  sir,  I  would  gladlv  have  been  excused  from  say- 
ing ;  but  less  than  this,  situated  as  I  am,  justice  to  my 
brother,  to  the  public,  and  to  the  cause  of  truth,  would 
not  permit  me  to  sav. 

The  *'  First  Part"  of  your  book,  which   is  professedly  . 
on  the  subject  oi  close  commxmion^  appears  to  have  been 
intended,    rather  as   a  warm  address  to  the  feelings  of 
your  brethren,  than  as  an  argumentative  treatise.     Ma- 
ny of  the  things  in  this  address,  particularly  respecting 
the  christian  church,  I  consider,   for  substance,  correct ; 
though  from  the  manner,    in  which  thev  ?re   presented 
and  applied,  I  must  certainly  take  leave  to  dissent.    But 
he  close  commnnion  principle  and  practice,  which  it  v/as 
our  professed  design   to  justify  and  promote,  my  brc- 
'ler's  "  Friendly  Letter,"  and  other  publications,  on  the 
same  subject,  have  clearly,  I  think,  shewn  to  be  utterly 
indefensible,  upon  any  scriptural,  or  christian  grounds. 

Your  "Second  Part,"  which  is  professedly  a  reply  to 
:he  "  Friendly  Letter,"  not  confined  to  the  subject  of 
close  communion,  embraces,  among  other  things,  the 
Tjrincipal  points  in  dispute,  between  the  psedobaptists  and 
antipsedobaptists.  To  this  "  Part,"  particularly,  my  bro- 
ther's "  Candid  Discussion  of  some  interesting  Ques- 
•ions,  &c."  was  intended,  and,  I  believe,  will  still  be 
considered,  as  an  answer. 

Your  "Appendix,"  nov\'  subjoined  to  your  former  pub- 
lications, makes  your  "Third,"  and  principal  "Part." 
In  this  "  Part"  you  have  thought  proper  to  bring  for- 
ward, anew,  most  of  the  things  contained  in  your  former 
Parts,  with  considerable  additions  and  amplifications, 
and  with  augmented  zeal. 

In  the  first  "  Section"  of  your  Appendix,  containing 
some  general  and  desultor\'  remarks,  you  manifest  great 
uneasiness,  that  j'ou  and  your  brethren  should  be  so  ear- 
nestly pressed  on  the  subject  of  close  C07mnuni'-n,  Here 
'  ou  are  pleased  to  ask,  "  For  what  purpose  is  this  kue 
and  cry  stt  v}-i  zhowt  close  communion:"  And  you  in- 
timate that  "the  true  ansv.  er  to  this  question  would  be, 
hecau?:e  it  is  known  to  be  he  most  popular  oh'^^iciion 
against"  your  "  sentiments'.*  Whether  there  be  in  this 
any  intended  reflection,  or  aspersion,  I  am  not  con- 
cerned to  enquire.  But  as  a  friend  to  truth  and  Chris- 
tian unity,  i  take  leave  to  assure  you,  that  I  esteem  it  a 
C'lbject  of  thankfiurerA  and  congratulation,  if  it  be  a  fact. 


O  LETTER    Jo 

that  fair  and  car.did  opposition  to  your  close  communion 
is  '■'' popular. "*'  For  the  honoin-  of  the  Christian  name, 
for  the  prosperity  of  the  Chrisiian  cause,  I  hope  it  will 
continue  to  be  '"'■populcr ^^  and  increasingly  "-popular," 
till  the  whole  body  of  Christ's  people,  losing  their  dis- 
tinctions of  party  and  of  name,  shall  cordially  unite,  in 
the  bonds  of  pure  charity  and  fellowship. 

In  the  second  Section  of  vour  Appendix,  you  under- 
take to  consider  "  the  Arguments  for  Infant  Mem- 
bers'iip  in  the  Gospel  Chuxcb,  inferred  from"  what 
you  choose  to  call  "the  Covenant  of  Circumcision:" 
and  in  the  third,  "  Whether  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
Churches  are  the  same  ?"  Whatever  of  argument  you 
have  thought  proper  to  intersperse  in  these  Sections, 
among  other  things,  which  many  v/ill  probably  sup- 
pose might  very  well  have  been  spared,  will  claim  my 
particular  attention^ 

In  your  fourth  Section,  containing  "Strictures  oji  the 
Rev.  Peter  Edward's  Candid  Reasons  for  renouncing 
the  principles  of  Antipsedobaptism,"  if  I  do  not  exceed- 
ingly misjudge,  you  have  been  peculiarly  unhappy.  Had 
you  treated  Mr.  Edwards  and  his  "  Candid  Reasons," 
in  a  very  different  manner,  vou  would  have  found  in 
your  *'•  Strictures,"  I  am  persuaded,  in  the  sober  hour  of 
reviev/,  much  less  cause  than  you  now  will  find,  for  pain- 
ful regret. 

In  the  lifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  Sections  of  vour  Ap- 
pendix, you  have  given  "-Strictures"  on  my  "  Two  Dis- 
courses, on  the  Perpetuity  and  Provision  of  God's  gra- 
cious covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed;"  attempted 
"to  vindicate  the  Baptists  from  some  things  respecting 
them,  advanced  in  those  Discourses ;  and  occasionally 
glanced,  in  passing,  at  the  Rev.  Dr.  Osgood,  Mr.  Aus- 
.tin,  and  Mr.  Anderson.  What  you  have  exhibited  ia 
these  three  Sections,  I  shall  have  occasion  in  my  subse- 
quent Letters,  particularly  to  consider.  At  present  I 
will  only  observe,  that  vour  Glrictures,  and  attempts  at 
x-indicaticn,  so  far  from  weakening  rr.v  confidence,  in  the 
cause  which  I  have  undertaken  to  maintain,  have  had 
the  effect  to  strengthen  mt  ^?i  the  belief,  that  the  princi- 
ples of  my  Discourses  are  such  as  can  never  be  shaken, 
and  that  a  nrm  and  religious  adherence  to  them  is  of 
high  and  everlasting  importance. 

In  your  eighth  and  last  Section,  you  have  resutned  your 


LETTER    1. 


favorite  sxxhiect  of  close  communion;  and  have  given, 
I  think,  additional  proof  how  difficult  it  is  to  support  that 
practice  by  christian  argument,  or  even  to  write  in  favor 
of  it  with  a  christian  spirit. 

Of  the  spirit  and  manner  of  your  book,  at  large,  could 
I  express  myself  in  terms  of  unqualified  commendation, 
it  would  certainly  afford  me  a  peculiar  satisfaction. 
Professions,  indeed,  you  have  been  pleased  to  advance 
many,  and  they  will  all,  I  trust,  be  duly  appreciated. 

The  general  subject  of  this  controversy  is  certainly  a 
subject  never  to  be  treated  with  lightness,  with  contumely, 
or  with  asperity.  If  the  professed  friends  of  God,  when 
disputing  upon  questions  relating  to  his  gracious  cove- 
nant, and  his  sacred  institutions,  cani^ot  display  the  spi- 
rit of  christian  seriousness,  and  candour,  and  charitv  ;  by 
whom,  and  on  what  occasions,  is  this  amiable  and  excel- 
lent spirit  to  be  displayed  ? 

Truth,  indeed,  must  be  exhibited  ;  misrepresentation 
must  be  corrected ;  argument  must  be  r^pplied ;  lallacy 
must  be  exposed  ;  and  error  must  be  exploded.  But  a 
wide  difference  there  certainlv  is,  though  but  too  often 
unobserved,  between  the  faithful  severity  of  truth,  and 
the  passionate  asperity  of  prejudice  ;  between  serious 
animadversion,  and  opprobrious  invective  ;  betvreen  a 
solemn  representation  of  fact,  and  railing  accusation. 
And  if  mild  and  dignified  irony,  or  satire,  be  occasion- 
allv  admissible  ;  it  certainly  but  ill  becomes  the  Chris- 
tian disputant  to  descend  to  lew  and  indiscriminate  ri- 
dicule. 

These,  Sir,  are  my  present  impressions ;  and  under 
these  impressions,  I  hope,  undeviatingly,  to  conduct  my 
part  of  this  serious  dispute.  But  I  exceedingly  regret, 
that  in  the  course  of  these  Letters,  some  things  will  un- 
avoidably fall  in  my  way,  which  cannot,  I  am  afraid,  be 
justly  noticed,  without  offence.  I  ask  it  however,  as  a 
piece  of  justice,  not  to  be  blamed,  or  charged  with  un- 
due severity,  for  any  Jair  and  necesssri/  representation, 
however  disagreeable,  or  unpleasant,  the  thing  repre- 
sented may  be. 

In  your  general  "Preface,"  referring  to  my  "Two 
Discourses,"  you  have  this  observation:  "As  these 
Discourses  are  designed  not  only  to  strengthen  and  sup- 
port Padobaptism,  but  to  pull  down  and  bring  into  disre- 
pute the  sentiments  of  his  Baptist  neighbors,  wjnc  dweijf 


8  LETTER    Iv 

peaceably  by  him,  we  make  no  apology  for  attempting 
to  prove  his  misstatements  and  misrepresentations." 
As  the  "  peaceable"  manner,  in  which  "  Baptists"  are 
accustomed  "to  dwell  by"  their  "neighbors"  is,  gene- 
rally well  known  ;  and  as  it  is  obvious,  that  whatever  is 
done  "to  strengthen  and  support"  truth,  is,  of  neces- 
sary consequence,  so  much  done  "  to  pull  down,  and 
bring  into  disrepute"  the  opposite  error  ;  any  remarks, 
in  reply,  upon  these  points,  would  probably  be  d-cmed 
superfluous.  A^  much  as  in  us  lies^  to  iivz  peaceably 
roith  all  men  ^  and  earnestly  to  contend  for  the  faiths  once 
delivered  to  the  Saints^  are  important,  and  u.'i questiona- 
bly harmonious,  Christiftn  injunctions. 

If  you  supposed,  that  I  hod  published  "misstate- 
ments and  misrepresentations,"  you  certainly  had  occa- 
sion to  "  make  no  apology  for  attempting  to  prove"  and 
correct  them.  But  whether  you  have  succeeded  in  this 
attempt,  or  whether,  in  fact,  any  "  misstatements"  or 
"  misrepresentations"  are  chargeable  to  my  account,  the 
candid  public,  after  attending  to  both  sides,  will  be  in  a 
situation  to  judge. 

To  "invite  you  to  the  contest,"  as  you  have  been 
pleased  to  intimate,  w^s  certainly  far  from  my  inten- 
tion. To  instruct  and  establish  the  people  of  my  charge, 
in  what  I  then  believed,  and  still  believe,  to  be  import- 
ant truth,  and  to  fortify  their  minds  against  the  influ- 
ence of  what  I  then  believed,  and  still  believe,  to  be 
hurtful  error,  was  the  honest  design  of  my  Discourses  ; 
which  were  written  and  delivered,  without  any  view  to 
a  publication  from  the  press. 

That  great  exertions  have  been  made  to  raise  a  preju- 
dice against  me,  for  the  part  which  I  have  felt  it  my  du- 
ty to  take,  in  this  common  cause,  I  am  fully  apprized  ; 
and  I  certainly  have  no  pretensions  to  a  stoical  indiffer- 
ence, either  to  the  displeasure  of  opponents,  or  to  the 
uncomforatable  feelings  of  honest,  but  unstable,  or  mis- 
judging, friends.  My  duty,  however,  I  must  fulfil ;  and 
if  any  thing  is  to  be  done  for  the  cause  of  truth,  and  for 
the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer,  no  considerations,  of  a 
nature  personal  to  myself,  are  to  deter  me  from  the  at- 
tempt. 

Respectfully  your's,  &c. 


9 
LETTER   IL 

i^EV.lif  DEAR  SIR, 

IN  the  commencement  of  your  "Strictures" 
on  my  "Tv/o  Discourses,"  you  are  pleased  to  inforni 
your  readers,  that  you  will  "attempt-,  j^rst^  to  prove,  that 
Mr.  Worcester  kas  totally  mistaken  the  promise  in  his 
text ;  that  the  apostle  referred  to  a  promise  entirely  dis- 
tinct from  that  from  which  he  has  reasoned."* 

And  if  ye  be  Chrisfsy  then  are  ye  Abraham^s  seed^  and 
heirs  according  to  the  promise.  Gal.  iii.  29.  This  was 
my  text.  The  promise^  which  you  suppose,  I  have: 
*'  m.istaken,"  I  understand  to  be  the  one,  to  which  refer- 
ence is  had  in  the  last  clause  of  the  text,  according  to 
zvhich  all,  xvho  ere  Christ's,  are  Abraham'' s  seed,  and 
heirs. 

To  prove  my  mistake,  you  undertake  to  shev/,  that 
the  promise,  to  which,  in  my  text,  the  apostle  refers,  is 
the  game,  which  he  had  cited,  in  the  eighth  verse  of  my 
context,  viz.  In  thse  shall  all  nations  be  blessed ;  that 
*'this  promise  was  made  twenty-four  years  before  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  existed  ;"  and  "that  it  was  not 
directly  connected  with,  nor  included  in  that  covenant." 
Having,  as  you  suppose,  established  these  premises,  you 
proceed  very  triumphantly  to  "the  conclusion,  that  Mr. 
Worcester  has  totally  mistaken  the  promise  in  his  text  ;" 
as  it  is  to  be  "kept  in  mind,  that  the  promise  made  to 
Abraham  and  his  seed,  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision 
is  the  datura,  from  which  he  reasons."  Thus  by  one 
tremendous  blow,  my  "  whole  labored  superstructure," 
as  you  are  pleased  to  declare,  "  is  left  without  founda- 
tion ;"  and  for  "  the  fate  of  such  a  building"  you  refer 
your  readers  to  "  the  close  of  the  sixth  chapter  of 
Luke." 

Really,  Sir,  this  is  doing  the  business  off  hand  ,•  and 
you  and  your  brethren,  I  doubt  not,  have  reciprocated 
very  cordial  felicitations,  on  seeing  it  so  easily,  and  so 
quickly  dispatched.  But  reluctant  as  I  may  be  to  inter- 
rupt your  joy,  I  must  take  leave  to  assure  you,  that,  un- 
less I  am  under  an  unaccountable  illusion,  my  "  su- 
perstructure" has  stood  your  blow  unshaken,  and  still 
rests  secure,  on  a  firm  and  immoveable  basis. 

*  Appendix,  p.  258, 

Let.  B 


10  LLTTKR    II. 

In  all  which  you  h:iye  offered  in  the  pages  now  under 
immediate  revie-v,  I  have  found  nothing,  as  I  recollect,  of 
which  I  was  not  previously  awai'e.  I  was  aware,  that  the 
promise^  referred  to  in  my  text,  was  supposed  to  be  the 
same,  which  was  cited  in  the  eighth  verse  of  the  content ; 
I  was  aware  that  this  promise  was  first  given  t®  Abra- 
ham, about  twenty-four  years  before  the  covenant  with 
him  was  sealed,  with  the  sifrn  of  circumc'tnoii  ;  I  v/as 
aware,  that,  by  the  Antipsedobaptists,  this  promise, 
\vas  not  allowed  to  be  included  in  the  covenant,  of 
Xvhich  circumcision  was  the  seal ;  and  I  was  av/are  of 
all  the  arguments  which  you  have  advanced,  in  support 
of  their  opinion.  It  behoves  me,  therefore,  to  confess, 
that,  if  I  have  erred  in  this  point,  my  error  has  not  the 
excuse  of  ignorance  ;  but  is  attended  with  all  the  ag- 
gravations to  be  incurred,  from  w^hat  you  seem  to  con- 
sider as  very  clear  light, 

"  If  Mr.  Worcester,"  you  say,  "  can  honorably  ex- 
tricate himself  from  the  foregoing  dilemma,  he  will  un- 
doubtedly do  it ;  and  in  doing  it  he  will  instruct  the 
writer  of  these  Strictures,  and  probably  relieve  some 
of  his  brethren,  who  have,  it  is  thought,  already  felt  the 
difficulty."  V/hat  the  "  dilemma"  is,  to  v/hich  you  have 
reduced  me,  or  what  the  "  difficulty,"  which,  as  you  arc 
jileased  to  intimate,  my  brethren  have  felt,  I  am  really, 
a,t  present,  unable  to  perceive  ;  but  I  shall  certainly  at- 
tjtmpt  "  honorably"  to  shew,  that  in  the  part  of  your 
Strictures,  now  in  view,  you  have  only  so  fought^  as  one 
x'jho  hcateth  tke  air. 

In  my  present  Letter,  I  shall  endeavour  to  make  it 
appear,  that  should  it  even  be  admitted,  that  your  views 
of  the  promise  in  my  text  ai-e.-  correct,  it  would  by  no 
means  follow,  that  my  Discourses  "  are  without  foun- 
dation."— And  afterv/ard-j,  in  some  subsequent  Letters, 
I  trust  I  shall  not  fail  to  prove,  that  the  promise,  Li  thcc 
shall  all  uations  be  blessed^  was  really  included  in  the  co- 
venant, of  which  circumcision  was  an  instituted  seal. 

You  are  careful  partif:ularly  to  request  your  readers 
"  lo  keep  in  mind,  that  the  promise  made  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed,  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  is  the 
datian.,  from  which  the  author  of  the  Discoiu'ses  rea- 
stno."  But  "the  promise  made  to  Abraham  and  his 
seed,  iu  this  covenant,  is  r.ot,"  you  contend,  "  the  pro- 
mise to  v.'hich  the  apostle"  in  my  text  "refers."    Kence 


LETTER    ir.  11 

you  conclude,  that  my  "whole  superstructure  is  with- 
crut  foundation."  But  is  not  this,  Sir,  an  extraordinary 
conclusion?  My  whole  Discourses  " without  founda- 
tion," merely  because,  as  you  suppose,  I  mistook  the 
sense  of  my  text  ! 

Will  you  undertake  to  maintain,  tliat  the  doctrine  of 
a  Sermon  can  have  no  foundation,  unless  it  be  supported 
by  the  text?  Certainly  you  will  not.  Of  v/hat  avail, 
then,  is  your  "  mathematical  demonstration  ?" 

V/ere  vour  premises  to  be  admitted  in  their  utmost 
extent,  they  would  only  go  to  evince,  that  I  hwe  trans- 
gressed that  rule  of  correct  sermonizing,  which  requires 
that  the  text  be  such,  as  fairly  to  support  the  doctrine. 
But  this,  Sir,  is  a  very  different  tli'm^  from  Y^i'oving,  that 
my  doctrine  is  "  without  foundation."  Had  I  chosen 
for  my  text  1  Chron.  i.  1,  Adam^  Sheth^  Enosh  ;  and 
stated  as  my  doctrine  from  it,  that  all  makkixd  are 
DEPRAVED  ;  my  doctrine,  though  not  supported  by  ihe^ 
text,  might  nevertheless  liave  been  well  founded,  and 
my  arguments  in  support  of  it,  scriptural  and  conclu- 
fiive.- 

The  great  doctrine  of  my  Discoiu'ses  is  i»istinctly 
stated,  and  my  arguments,  in  tMpport  of  it,  are  drawn 
from  no  less  than  five  very  copious  scriptural  topics. 
Xhese  arguments  vou  have  not  thought  proper  directly 
to  encounter  ;  nor  are  they,  in  any  degree,  shaken,  by 
any  indirect  strokes,  which  vou  have  occasionally  aimed 
at  them.  And  be  assured,  Sir,  as  long  as  those  five  pil- 
lars stand,  should  it  ever  be  proved,  that  I  was  under  a 
mistake  with  respect  to  my  text,  I  shall  have  but  little 
fear,  that  my  superstructure  will  fall  for  the  want  of 
*'  foundation." 

But  be  pleased  to  observe,  Sir,  I  have  not  conceded, 
nor  shall  I  at  present  concede,  that  my  doctrine  is  net 
fairly  supported  by  mv  text. 

Could  it  even  be  proved,  as  I  am  confident  it  cannot, 
that  the  promise  to  which  reference  is  had  in  the  last 
clause  of  ray  text,  did  not  belong  to  the  covenant,  on 
which  the  church  was  founded  in  Abraham's  family  ;  it 
would  certainly,  hov/ever,  be  allowed,  that  thia  impor- 
tant sentiment  is  upon  the  verv  face  of  the  text,  that^uU 
true  believers  are  chiklrer,  of  Abrakari^  end  as  his  ck't!- 
dren,  heir':.  But  to  v/nat  are  believers,  as  the  children 
of  Abraham,  heirs  ?  Undoubtedly   to  that  rijhteoiiniiei^s- 


13  LETTER    II. 

of  faith  ^  of  which  circumcision  was  an  appointed  sec! ; 
and,  generally,  to  that  glorious  inheritance,  which  was 
given,  by  covenant,  to  Abraham,  as  the  patriarch  of  the 
church.  But  if  believers  throughout  all  generations,  are 
thus  divinely  constituted  children  of  Abraham,  and  as 
his  children  heirs  ;  can  it  admit  of  a  question,  whether 
that  church,  of  which  he  was  the  patriarch,  and  that  co~ 
venant,  by  v/hich  the  inheritance  was  secured  to  him  and 
his  seed,  rvere  intrnded  to  continue  to  the  latest  ages  of 
the  tverld.  This  is  the  doctrine  which  I  advanced  from 
the  text ;  and  I  ask  you,  Sir,  candidly,  is  it  not  fairly 
deducible  ?  Had  I  even  omitted  the  last  clause,  with  re- 
spect to  which  you  suppose  I  was  under  a  mistake  ;  still 
xvould  not  the  rest  of  the  text  have  been  sufficient  for  the 
support  of  my  doctrine  .? 

Will  you  inform  mc.  Sir,  hov,-  believers  in  Christ  be- 
come the  children  of  Abraham,  and,  as  his  children,  art 
blessed  xvith  him  and  made  heirs  of  the  inheritance  con- 
veyed to  him  J  if  it  be  not  by  virtue  of  that  cove- 
nant, by  which  the  church  was  formed  in  his  family  ? 
And  how  can  they  be  children  and  heirs,  by  virtue  of 
that  covenant,  unless  the  covenant,  and  the  church  forBfi- 
ed  by  it,  be  still  continai*4  ? 

Some  persons,  within  nay  knowledge,  have  undertaken 
to  say,  they  did  not  believe  there  v/as  ever  such  a  man, 
as  the  Rev.  Peter  Edv/ards,  author  of  Candid  Reasons 
for  renouncing  the  Principles  of  Antipsedobaptism  ; 
seeming  to  imagine,  that  if  the  author  were  set  aside,  all 
the  arguments  contained  in  his  book  must  fall  of  course  ! 
It  is  seriously  submitted,  Sir,  for  your  consideration, 
whether,  with  respect  to  my  Discourses,  you  have  not 
adopted  a  similar  method.  Having,  as  you  supposed, 
set  aside  the  text,  you  conclude,  with  great  assurance, 
that  the  whole  must  fall  ! 

By  this  ingenious  method,  you  undoubtedly  proposed 
to  save  yourself  the  task  of  answering  the  arguments,  by 
which  the  great  doctrine  of  my  Discourses  v/as  sup- 
ported ;  a  task,  which  you  probably  perceived,  it  would 
be  diScult  to  perform.  But  the  infelicity  is,  that  not 
only  no  discerning  reader  will  suppose,  that  merely  sei- 
ti-Uj-  aside  the  text  would  overthrow  the  doctrine  ;  but 
the  text,  after  all  your  labor  to  remo%'e  it,  still  gives  to 
the  doctrine  a  5rm  support- 


LETTER    III.  IS 

This,  though  already  very  clear,  will  appear,  I  trust, 
Vith  still  gi-eater  clearness,  from  what  I  have  further  to 
conimunicate. 

Your's,  dear  Sir,  &c. 


LETTER  III. 

REV.isf  DEAR  SIR,    , 

IN  my  last  Letter,  I  endeavored  to  shew,  that, 
should  vour  views  of  the  promise,  referred  to  in  my 
text,  be  admitted  as  correct,  it  would  by  no  means  fol- 
low, that  my  Discourses  are  "  without  foundation."  I 
shall  now,  in  this,  and  some  subsequent  Letters,  at- 
tempt to  shew,  that  your  views  are  7iot  correct ;  and  that 
the  promise,  /n  thee  shall  alhiations  be  blessed,vfz%  really 
included  in  the  covenant  of  the  church,  of  which  cir- 
cumcision was  an  instituted  seal. 

To  elude  the  pressure  of  our  arguments  from  the  A- 
brahamic  covenant,  you  and  your  brethren  have  assumed  a 
distinction  between  the  covenant,  first  proposed  to  Abra- 
ham at  the  time  of  his  call,  and  the  covenant,  twenty- 
four  years  afterwards  established  with  him  and  sealed 
with  the  sign  of  circumcision  ;  as  if  there  were  tv/o  en- 
tirely unconnected,  and  dift'erent  covenartts.  This  dis- 
tinction, I  consider  a  mere  assumption.  On  a  candid 
attention  to  the  subject,  it  will  appear,  I  think,  beyond 
all  reasonable  dispute,  that  there  never  was,  in  fact,  but 
one  covenant  made  with  Abraham  ;*  and  that  in  that 
one  covenant  all  the  precious  promises  to  him  were  in- 
cluded. 

The  xvorh.  of  redemption^  is  the  gi'eat  work  of  God,  by 
which,  from  eternity,  he  purposed  to  make  knozvii  to  the 
principalities  and  poivers^  in  heavenly  places^  his  ma/iifold 
wisdom.  This  -work,  though  composed  of  many  parts, 
and  continued,  from  age  to  age,  under  different  dispensa- 

*  Unless,  indeed,  the  covenant  respecting  Canaan,  v/hich  was 
confirmed  by  the  smoking  furnace  and  the  burr.ing  lump.,  be 
considered  a  distinct  covenant,  though  aftei-wards  including  the 
other. 


14  LETTER    111. 

tions,  is  07it ;  the  church  of  the  redeemed  is  cnc,  and  the 
covenant  with  the  church  is  one. 

Immediately  after  the  apostacy,  in  Paradise,  the  work  of 
redemption  commenced.  The  voice  of  the  Lord  God  xvas 
heard,  tvalking  in  the  garden  in  the  cool  of  the  day. 
Having  summoned  the  guilty  parents  of  our  race  before 
him,  and  examined  them  on  the  subject  of  their  revolt ; 
the  Lord  God  turned  to  the  serpent,  and,  in  their  hear- 
ing, said  to  him,  Because  thou  hast  done  this,  thou  art 
cursed  above  all  cattle,  and  above  every  beast  of  the  field: 
upon  thy  belly  shalt  thou  go,  and  dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the 
days  of  thy  life.      And  I  will  put  enmity  between 

THEE   AND  THE  WOMAN,    AND  BETV/EEN   THY   SEED    AND 
HER    seed:    it    shall    BRUISE    THY    HEAD,    AND    THOU 

SHALT  BRUISE  HIS  HEEL.     Gen.  iii.  14,  15. 

This  may,  with  strictness,  be  considered  as  the  begin- 
ning of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ.  In  the  tremendous 
sentence  pronounced  upon  the  serpent  and  his  seed,  was 
the  first  exhibition,  or  revelation,  of  the  eternal  counsel 
of  peace,  or  covenant  of  redemption,  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  which  is  the  unchangeable  foundation  and 
source  of  all  the  merciful  dispensations  to  our  fallen  race. 
'f  This  curse  upon  satan  contains  th-e  sum  of  all  blessings., 
which  a  merciful  God  bestows  on  sinful  men  ! — It  is  a 
prophecy,  and  a  promise,  which  have  ever  since  been  ful- 
filling, but  have  not  yet  received  their  entire  accomplish- 
ment, It  comprises  the  whole  gospel,  and  a  prophetical 
history  of  the  opposition,  v/ith  which  it  should  meet,  and 
the  success,  with  which  it  should  be  crowned,  in  all  ages 
and  countries,  to  the  end  of  time.  Indeed  almost  the 
whole  history  of  the  church,  and  of  the  world,  through 
time  and  to  eternity  is  compendiously  delineated  in  this 
singular  verse."* 

Bij  the  seed  of  the  woman,  with  almost  universal  con- 
sent, we  are  here  to  understand,  Christ  as  preer.iincnt, 
and  all  his  believing  people,  as  one  xvith  him,  and  metnbers 
of  the  mystical  hodij,  of  xuhich  he  is  the  head.  Christ  and 
his  people,  of  all  ages  and  nations,  are  the  secf-  of  thexvor 
man,  in  contradistinction  to  satan  and  all  M'ho  adhere 
to  his  cause,  designated  as  the  serpent  and  his  seed.  In 
this   construction  all  the  principal  commentators  agree. 

*  ScotL's  Com.  Gen.  iii.  Wetsius's  Divine  Economy,  Bool;  IV. 
Chap.  1.    Edwards  Hist.  Redcmp.  Period  1.  Sect.  1. 


LETTER    III.  15 

,  In  this  early  promise,  Christ  was  presented,  as  a  co- 
venant for  the  people ;  and  upon  the  ground  of  this 
promise,  the  church  of  his  redeemed,  commencing  with 
the  first  human  pair,  was  originally  founded.* 

With  reference  to  this  promise,  sacrifices  were  di* 
vinely  instituted,  as  types  ©f  the  great  atonement  to  be 
made  once  in  the  end  of  the  world,  and  as  sacred  memori- 
als of  Gods  72£t;6»,  f  and  gracious,  and  everlasting  cove-* 
nant. 

By  faith  in  this  promise,  Adam  called  his  -wife's  name 
Eve  ;  because  as  the  constituted  mother  of  the  promised 
seed,  including  the  Messiah  and  all  his  believing  people, 
she  ruos  the  jnether  of  ail  living,  or  of  ail  life.  By 
faiih  in  this  promise,  Abel  offered  unto  God  a  more  ac- 
ceptable sacrifice  than  Cain.  By  faith  in  this  promise, 
the  people  of  God,  in  the  days  of  Enos,  began  to  callupon, 
or  (according  to  the  original  text,)  to  call  themsehes  by, 
the  name  of  the  Lord ;  thus  distinguishing  themselves 
from  the  rest  of  the  world,  by  an  open  and  solemn  pro- 
fession. And  by  faith  in  this  promise,  from  time  to  time, 
in  some  manner  and  form,  renewed  and  confirmed,  the 
church  of  God  was  continued,  fzom  generation  to  gen- 
eration, to  the  days  of  Noah,  and  thence  to  the  days  of 
Abraham.  % 

From  the  beginning,  until  the  Abrahamic  dispensa- 
tion, the  church,  so  far  as  we  can  Igarn  from  the  sacred 
©racles,  was  continued  in  the  domestic,  or  faviily  state. 
The  patriarch  of  a  family  was  also  the  patriarch  of  that 
part,  or  branch,  of  the  church,  which  the  members  of 
his  family  composed.  |[ 

But  for  wise  and  important  purposes,  the  Lord,  in 
due  time,  saw  fit  to  bring  his  church  into  a  more  com- 
pact, and  more  regularly  orgaaized,  body  ;  favored  with 
a  clearer  dispensation  of  his  covenant,  and  distinguished 
by  a  more  special  and  visible  seal. 

In  parsu?ince  of  this  gi"eat  design,  he  called  Abraham 
to  gz  out  from  hhs  count  ry  and  his  kindred^  and  his  father^  s 
house,  into  a  land,  which  he  xvoidd shexo  him  ;  th?.t,  in  his 
familv,  the  church  might  be  regularly  formed,  and  that 

*  Edwards  ibid.     Muirhead's  Dissertations,  T'.itroductioB. 
t  JVeu;,   in  contradistinction  to  the  first,  or  old,  covenant  of 
works,  made  with  Adam  on  the  day  of  his  creation. 
%  Scott,  VVitsius,  Edwards,  and Muirhead,  ibid. 
!l  Muirhead's  Diss.  ibid. 


16  LETTER  III. 

withhim,as  the  hetr  »fthgrvorld,?Lridthe  constituted  fat  her 
of  all  them  that  believe^  his  everlastings  covenant  might  be 
established.  And  from  that  memorable  period,  forwarvi 
to  the  end  of  time,  the  church  was  to  be  considered  as 
cne  great  family,  composed  of  the  children,  either  natu- 
ral, or  adopted,  of  Abraham  ;  and,  accordingly,  in  Aln-a- 
ham,  as  the  constituted  patriarch,  all  the  families  of  the 
earth  zuere  to  be  blessed. 

At  the  time  of  Abraham's  call,  the  promise,  Li  thee 
shall  all  nations^  or  all  the  families  of  the  earthy  be  bless- 
ed^ "vvas  first  made  to  him.  Thl?,  as  you  yourself  sup- 
pose, and  as  none  I  believe  will  deny,  is  the  verv  same 
promise,  or  a  promise  of  the  same  comprehensive  im- 
port, with  that,  jfirst  made  in  Paradise,  that  the  seed  of 
the  xvoman  shoidd  bruise  the  serpent^s  head. 

Now,  Sir,  suffer  me  to  ask  ;  is  not  the  representation, 
here  briefly  given,  correct  and  scriptural  ? 

Is  not  the  work  of  redemption  one^  though  in  constant 
progression?  Is  not  the  church  of  the  ledeemed,  though 
under  different  dispensations,  throughout  all  ages,  one  ? 
Was  not  the  church  primaevally  founded  on  the  graci- 
o«s  promise  of  the  Messiah,  first  given  in  Paradise  ? 
And  did  it  not  continue  upon  that  foundation,  till  the 
days  of  Abraham  ? 

Was  not  the  promise  to  Abraham,  in  thee,  and  in  thy 
seed  shall  all  nations  be  blesssd^  though  different  in  form, 
yet  (as  in  your  book  you  have  conceded)  in  substance 
the  same,  with  that  given  in  Paradise,  that  the  seed  of  the 
zuo7nan  should  bruise  the  serpents  head  ?  And  if  so  ;  then 
did  not  this  same  promise  continue  to  be  the  foundation 
of  the  church,  under  the  Abrahamic  dispensation,  as 
before,  from  the  beginning,  it  had  been  ? 

Was  there  not  in  the  days  of  Abraham  a  great  and 
important  advance  ?  Was  not  the  church  at  that  period 
advanced  to  a  higher  state,  under  a  clearer  and  more  fa- 
vorable dispensation  ?  And  is  it,  then,  to  be  supposed, 
that  in  this  its  advanced  state,  it  was  removed  from  the 
foundation  of  a  promise,  comprising  the  Messiah  and  all 
the  blessings  of  his  kingdom^  and  placed  upon  the  foim- 
dation  of  a  promise,  or  promises,  of  a  very  different  na- 
ture, and  comprising  only  temporal  blessings  P 

Certainly,  Sir,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  after  rest- 
ing for  two  thousand  years,  from  Adam  to  Abraham, 
upon  a  promise,  including  all  the  bl?rsings  of  saivatioJi ; 


LETTER    TV.  17 

the  thurch  of  God,  thus  acH'anced  to  a  higher  state,  was 
placed,  for  a  thousand  years,  from  Abraham  to  Christ, 
on  the  foundation  of  merely  temporal  pronii«es.  No, 
Sir  ;  other  foundation  can  no  inan  lay^  for  the  church  of 
God,  in  any  period  of  the  world,  than  that  rvhich  is 
iaiu\  cvsn  Christ. 

For  Y/hat  purpose,  it  might  be  asked,  was  the  great 
promise,  comprising  the  Messiah  and  all  the  blessings  of 
his  kingdom,  renewed,  at  the  time  of  Abraham's  call  ; 
if,  under  the  dispensation,  then  to  take  place,  the  church 
was  not  to  be  grounded  upon  it  ? 

Undoubtedly,  Sir,  as  the  church,  formed  in  Abra- 
ham's family,  was  but  a  continuation  of  the  same  church 
of  God,  which,  two  thousand  years  before,  commenced 
with  the  believing  first  parents  of  our  race,  so  it  remain- 
ed, though  under  a  different  economy,  yet  on  the  same 
foundation :  And  on  the  sanae  foundation,  though  un- 
der different  economies,  the  same  chmxh  has  remained 
to  the  present  day,  and  will  remain,  as  long  as  the  moon 
iudxijeth. 

This,  in  my  subsequent  Letters,  I  shall  eadeavor  ve- 
ry amply  to  prove  and  illustrate.  In  the  mean  time,  I 
remain, 

Your'?,  dear  Sir,  &c. 


LETTER  IV. 

REV.  \5f  DEAR  SIR, 

IN  order  the  more  fully  to  see,  that  the  cove- 
nant Av ith  Abraham  was  but  one,  and  contained  all  the 
great  and  precious  promises,  ev€r  made  to  him  ;  it  may 
be  useful  to  take  a  connected  view  of  God's  covenant 
transactions  with  that  distinguished  patriarch. 

Somewhat  more  than  2000  years  after  the  creation, 
and  about  426  years  after  the  flood,  at  a  time,  v/hcn  the 
descendants  of  Noah  had  very  generally  apostatized 
from  the  true  religion,  and  devoted  themselves  to  idola- 
try ;  The  Lord  said  unto  Abram,  Get  thee  cut  from  thif 
countnj  and  from  thy  kindred,  and  from  thij  father'' s 
Let.'C 


18  LETTER    IV. 

house^  unto  a  land  that  I  xvUl  sheru  thee ;  and  I  will  make 
of  thee  a  great  nation^  and  Iivili  bless  thee^  and  tn^ake  tluj 
name  great ;  and  thou  shalt  be  a  blessing.  And  I  will 
bless  them  that  bless  thce^  and  curse  him  that  curseth  thee  : 

a7ld  IS  TliEE     SHALL  ALL  FAMILIES     OF     THE  EARTH  BE 

BLESSED.  Gen.  xxii.  1 — 3.  By  faith  Abraham  obeyed, 
and  ivent  out.^  net  /: no-wing  rvhither  he  xvent. 

On  his  arrival  at  Moreh,  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  th« 
same  year'  of  his  departure  from  Haran,   the  Lord  ap- 
peared unto  Ahram  and  said^   Unto  thy  seed  will  I  give 
this  land:  end  there   builded  he  an  altar  unto  the  Lord 
zvho  appeared  unt9  him.     Gen.  xii.  7, 

On   the    departure   of  Lot  from  between  Bethel  and 
Ai,  where  Abrani  sojourned,  about  three  or  four  years 
after  his  first  arrival  in  Canaan,  the  Lord  said  to  Abram^ 
lift  tip  now  thine  eyes,  and  look  from  the  place  where  thou 
art,  northward,  arui  southward,  and  eastward,  and  -west- 
ward: for  all  the  land  xvhich  thou  seest,  to  thee  will  I  give 
it,  and  to  thy  see-d forever.     And  L  will  make  thy  seed  as 
the  dust  of  the  earth.     Gen.  xiii.  14 — 16.      Then  Abram 
removed  histejit,  iromhetween  Bethel  and  Ai,  to  the  plain 
of  Mamre  in  Hebron,  and  built  there  an  altar  unto  the  Lord. 
About  eight  years  after  his  arrival  in   Canaan,  on  hits 
return  from  his  memorable  expedition   against  Chedor- 
laomer  and  his  confederates,   the -word  of  the  Lord  came 
imto  Abram  in  a  vision,  saying.  Fear  not  Abrajn :  lam  thy 
shield  and  thy  exceeding  great  reward.  In  that  sa?ne  day, 
after  giving  him  assurances  of  a  son  for  his  heir,  and  fore- 
telling him  the  affliction  of  his  posterity  in  Egypt,   the 
Lord  made  a  covenayitxvith  Abrajn,  Saying,  Unto  thy  seed 
have  I  given  this  land,  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the 
great     river,   the  river  Euphrates ;   and   this    covenant 
was   confirmed,  by  the  smoking  furnace,  and  the  ^urn- 
i;z_g- /a;??/,  passing  between  the   parts   ot  the   slain  beasts 
and  birds.     Gen.  xv.  1 — 18. 

After  this  solemn  transaction,  it  does  not  appear,  that 
the  Lord  spake  again  to  Abram,  until  about  twenty- 
four  years  after  his  removal  from  Haran. 

But  xvhe?i  Abram  was  ninetrj  years  old  and  jiine,  the 
Lord  appeared  unto  Abrajn,  and  said  unto  him,  lam.  the 
almighty  God ;^''^  xvalk  before   me,   and  be   thou  per-fcct, 

*  In  the  original  Hebrew,  the  v/ord  is  El  Shaddai,  of  which  a 
more  proper  rendering  would  be,  God  all  sukficient.  It 
Ls  panicularly  ©bservable,  that  it  was  on  this  occasion,  wUep.  he 


LETTER    IV.  I'J 

And  I  ■will  make  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee ;  and 
will  multiply  thee  exceedingly.  And  Abram  fell  on  his 
face  J  and  God  talked  rvithhim^  saying.  As  for  7ne,  behold, 
my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  father  of 
many  notioiu.  Neither  shall  thy  name  any  more  be  called 
Abram  ;  bttt  thy  7iam€  shall  be  Abraham :  for  a  father  of 
mayiy  nations  have  I  made  thee.  And  I  rvill  7nake  thee 
exceeding  fruitful,  and  I  will  make  nations  cf  thee,  and 
kings  shall  come  out  cf  thee.  And  I  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in 
their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God 
unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.  And  I  will  give  unto 
thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  whereiji  thou  art 
a  stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting  pos- 
session ;  and  Ixvill  be  their  God.  On  this  memorable  oc- 
casion, the  outward  rite  of  circumcision  was  instituted, 
as  a  TOKEN  of  the  covenant  j  and  on  the  selfsame  day  xvas 
Abraham  circumcised,  and  all  the  males  of  his  house- 
hold.    Gen.  xvii. 

Alter  this  solemn  transaction,  but  in  the  same  year, 
the  Lord  appeared  to  Abraham  twice  ;  once  on  occasion 
of  the  destruction  of  Sodom  j*  and  afterwards  on  occa- 
sion of  Sarah's  proposal,  after  the  birth  of  Isaac,  to  cast 
out  the  bond  xi'oman  and  her  son;\  on  both  which  occa- 
sions he  graciously  gave  a  renewal  of  his  promises. 

About  twenty-six  vears  after  the  formal  establishment 
of  the  church  in  Abrahams  family,  as  the  last  special  trial 
of  his  faith  and  obedience,  the  Lord  was  pleased  to  com- 
mand Abraham  to  take  his  son  Isaac,  then  about  twenty- 
tive  years  of  age,  and  offer  him  up  as  a  burnt  offering,  on 
one  of  the  mountains  of  Moriah.  On  this  solemn  and 
affecting  occasion,  after  Abraham  had  given  proof  of  his 
entire  devotion  to  the  divine  will,  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
called  to  him  out  of  Heaven,  and  said,  By  myself  have  I 
sworn,  saith  the  Lord,  for  because  thou  hast  done  this  thit-g^ 
and  hast  not  withheld  thy  son,  thin:  only  son  ;  that  in  bles- 
sing I  will  bless  thee,  and  in  multiplying  I  will  multiply 
shy  seed,  as  the  stars  of  heaven,  and  as  the  sand  which 
is  upon  the  sea  shore  ;  and  thy  seed  shall  possess  the  gale 

appea'-cd  for  the  purpose  of  otabliskiji,^  his  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham, ihat,  for  the  first  time,  God  revealed  hiirisclf  in  this  majestic 
ind  glorious  name.      Was  it,  then,  to  ratify  a  covena.nt  merely 
temporal  ? 
'    *  Gen.  xviii.  1—29.  t  Ibid.  xxi.  12,  15. 


20  LETTER    IV. 

cf  hh  etiem'ies.  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  tiatkns  of  the 
earth  be  blessed  ;  because  thou  hast  obeyed  try  voice. 
Gen.  xxii. 

Upon  this  connected  view  of  these  interesting  trans- 
actions, I  take  leave  to  suggest,  for  your  consideration,  a 
few  very  plain  remarks. 

1.  In  the  first  extraordinary  call  of  Abrahsim,  the 
Lord  had,  undoubtedly,  some  great  and  important  de- 
sign. But  what  was  his  design  ?  For  what  purpose 
did  he  call  Abraham,  to  leave  his  countrv,  and  his  con- 
nexions, and  to  go  into  a  land,  in  which  he  was  a  stran- 
ger? The  answer  is  obvious.  It  was,  that  he  might 
establish  the  church  in  Abraham's  family,  for  the  honor 
of  his  ov;n  great  name,  and  for  the  extensive  and  lasting 
good  of  mankind.     But 

2.  The  church  Avas  not  immediately  established  on  A- 
brahams  arrival  in  Canaan.  Previously  to  its  establish- 
ment about  twenty-four  years  elapsed.  What  v.-as  the 
reason  of  this  delay  ?  The  answer  again  is  obvious.  It 
v/as,  that  opportunity  might  be  given  for  the  trial,  and, 
exemplary  manifestation,  of  Abrahan^s  faith.  As  he  was 
ifo  be  constituted  the  patriarch  of  the  church,  and  the  fa- 
ther of  all  that  believe,  it  was  evidently  of  high  importance, 
that  his  faith  should  be  proved,  and  illustriously  display- 
ed, previous  to  his  receiving  the  seal  of  his  high  designa- 
tion. Hence  the  delay  of  the  solemn  transaction  ;  hence 
the  scenes  of  trial,  through  which  the  favored  patriarch 
v/as  called  to  pass. 

3.  Before  the  formd  establishment  of  the  church 
in  bis  family,  the  Lord  appeared,  and  spoke  to  Abra- 
ham, at  several  different  times.  For  what  purpose  was 
this  ?  Undoubtedly  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging  and 
sustaining  the  patriarch's  faith.  At  the  time  of  his  call, 
the  Lord  promised  Abraham,  that  if  he  vt-ould  depart 
from  his  country  and  connexions,  unto  a  land  which 
should  be  shev/n  him  ;  he  xuould  make  of  him  a  great  na- 
tion^ zvould  bhss  him,  'would%iake  his  v.ame  great,  ivould 
make  him  a  blessing,  and  in  him  all  nations  should  be  bles- 
sed. By  faith  in  these  general  promises,  Abraham  obeyed^ 
and  -went  forth,  not  knowing  xvhither  he  tvent.  On  his 
•arrival  in  Canaan,  a  sojourner  in  a  strange  land,  the 
Lord  graciously  met  with  him,  and,  for  tiie  fust  time, 
gave  him   the   promise  of  that  land.     This  v.'as  a  raore 


LETTER    IV.  21 

particular  pTornise,  than  any  which  before  he  had  re- 
ceived; and  was  evidently  very  seas®nable  and  well 
adapted  for  his  encouragement  and  support.  And  on 
an  attentive  review  of  the  several  gracious  appearances, 
which  the  Lord  was  pleased  to  vouchsafe  to  Abi"aJiam, 
it  \yill  readily  be  seen,  that  the  promises  and  renewals  of 
promis^3,  occasionally  made  to  him,  became  more  and 
more  particular  and  clear,  and  v*'erc  evidently  calculated, 
and  intended,'  to  encourage  and  support  the  patriarch's 
faith. 

4.  When  the  appointed  time  arrived,  for  the  formal 
establishment  of  the  church  in  Abi'aham's  family,  the  di- 
Tine  appearance  to  hirn  v/as  peculiarly  solemn  and  glo-» 
rious. 

The  Lord  appeared  to  Abraham^  and  said  unto  him^  I 
ar,i  El  Shaddai,  God  all  sufficient  ;  rvalk  before 
me  sLnd  he  thou  perfect ;  and  I  will  make  my  covenant  with 
thee.  The  manner  in  which,  on  this  occasion,  he  was 
pleased  to  manifest  himself,  so  far  transcended  in  glory, 
all  his  former  manifestations,  that,  like  Job  when  he  said, 
I  have  heard  of  thee  by  the  hearing  of  the  ear^  but  non) 
mine  eye  seeth  thee^  Abraham  was  overwhelmed  and 
fell  upon  his  face.  What  was  the  design  of  this  mani- 
festation, so  transcendantly  majestic  and  glorious  ?  Was 
it  not  to  prepare  the  patriarch's  mind  for  the  high  trans- 
action to  be  attended,  and  to  give  both  to  him,  and  his 
seed,  throughout  all  generations,  the  most  ample  and 
solid  ground  for  confidence,  that  all  the  great  and  preci- 
ous promises,  made  to  him,  and  now  solemnly  to  be  ra- 
tified and  sealed,  would  be  duly  fulfilled  ? 

Hitherto  Abraham  had  not  been  particularly  informed 
of  the  great  design,  for  which  be  was  called  to  sojourn  in. 
a  strange  land.  He  had  received  assurances,  indeed, 
that  he  was  divinely  designated  for  some  high  purpose  ; 
that  the  Lord  would  b/ess  hitn,  and  7}}al:e  his  naine great, 
and  that  in  him  all  nations  shoidd  be  blessed.  But  how, 
or  by  what  means,  he  had  not  been  informed,  nor  could 
he  have  had  any  distinct  idea. 

But  nov/,  having  passed  the  prerequisite  term  and 
course  of  trial,  and  given  those  proofs  of  faith  and  obe- 
dience, which  were  important  to  be  exhibited  in  him, 
who  was  to  be  publicly  constituted  the  father  cf  believers  ; 
the  Lord  appeared  to  hijr;-,  and  in  a  nianner  becoming 


22  LETTER    IV. 

the  glory  of  El  Shaddai,  disclosed  to  him  the  great 
design  of  his  call,  and  the  appointed  way,  in  which  the 
previous  promises,  made  to  him,  were  to  have  their  ful- 
filment. He  was  given  to  understand,  that  he  was  di- 
vinely appointed  to  be,  not  only  the  father  of  the  Mes- 
siah, but  also  the  patriarch  of  the  church  ;  and  that  in 
this  his  distinguished  capacity  it  was,  that  according  to 
the  promises  first  made  to  him  at  the  time  of  his  call,  he 
was  to  be  peculiarly  blessed^  his  name  was  to  be  great^ 
and  in  him  all  nations  were  to  be  blessed. 

Accordingly,  on  this  important  occasion,  his  name  was 
changed  from  Abram  to  Abraham.  Because^  said  Jeho- 
vah, u  father  of  many  nations  have  Imade^  or  constituted, 
thee  ;  the  promises  were  reduced  to  the  form  of  a  cove- 
nant ;  a  covenant,  by  which  the  church  was  formally 
constituted  in  his  family,  and  which  was  solemnly  esta- 
blished^ between  God  and  him  and  his  seed,  for  an  ever- 
lasting covenant  •  and  as  a  formal  ratification  of  the  high 
transaction,  he  received  the  sigti  of  circumcisio?t,  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith^  xohich  he  had^  and  so 
illustriously  had  manifested,  before  he  was  circumcised. 

Please  to  observe,  my  dear  Sir,  he  received  tff.e  sign  of 
Circumcision^  a  seal,  not  merely  of  the  temporal  inheri- 
tance of  Canaan,  but  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faiths 
■which  he  had^  in  the  divine  promises,  before  made  to 
him,  and  now  solemnly  renewed,  ratified,  and  confirmed. 
And  ©n  the  selfsame  day,  Abraham  was  circumcised, 
and  all  the  males  of  his  household,  and  the  church  was 
regulai'ly  formed. 

5.  About  twentv-six  years  after  the  formal  establish- 
ment of  the  church,  the  Lord  appeared  to  Abraham,  for 
the  last  time,  on  a  most  solemn  and  affecting  occason  ; 
and,  with  the  highest  solemnity,  gave  him  the  finishing 
confirmation  of  the  covenant.  Previous  to  this,  indeed, 
the  patriarch  was  favored  with  two  special  divine  ap- 
pearances ;  one  at  his  tent  door  in  Mamre,  the  other  at 
Gerar,  or  Beersheba,  where  Isaac  was  born.  At  each 
of  these  appearances,  he  was  graciouslv  encouraged,  and 
strengthened  in  his  faith,  as  before  he  had  been,  by  a  re- 
newal and  confirmation  of  promises.  But  the  appear- 
ance at  Moriah,  at  the  time  of  the  oblation  of  Isaac,  de- 
mands more  particular  attention. 

On  this  awful  occasion,  the  angel  of  the  Lord  called  to 
Abraham  out  of  heaven^  qndsaid^  By  myself  have  Jsworn^ 


LETTER  IV.  23 

saith  the  Lord^  in  blessings  I  xvill  bless  thee^  and  in  multi- 
plying^ I  will  multiply  thy  seed,  as  the  stars  of  heaven^ 
and  as  the  sand  zohich  is  upon  the  sea  shore; — and  in  thtf 
seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed. — What 
was  the  design  of  this  last  extraordinary  confirmation  ? 
The  apostle  to  the  Hebrews  furnishes  the  answer. 
Wherein  God^  willing  more  abundantly  to  shexv  unto  the 
heirs  of  pro  raise  the  immutability  of  his  counsel^  confirmed 
it  by  an  oath  ;  that  by  two  immutable  things,  in  which  it 
rvas  impossible  for  God  to  lie,  we  might  have  a  strong 
consolation,  who  are  f.ed  for  refuge^  to  lay  hold  on  the 
hope  set  before  us.     Heb.  vi.  17,  13. 

At  the  trying  command  of  Jehovah,  the  venerable  pa- 
triarch of  the  church,  who  had  received  the  promises, 
took  his  beloved  Isaac,  in  Avhom  under  God,  his  dearest 
hopes  were  placed,  to  the  land  of  Moriah  ;  and  there,  up- 
on one  of  the  mountains,  probably  the  very  same  on 
which  the  prefigured  Messiah  was,  eighteen  hundred 
years  afterv.^ards,  crucified,  bound  him  upon  the  altar, 
for  a  bloody  sacrifice.  "  We  have  much  reason  to  be- 
lieve," in  this.  Sir,  I  agree  with  you  perfectly,  "  that  in 
this  transaction,  Abraham  saw  more  of  the  mystery  of 
redemption,  through  the  incarnation  and  sacrifice  of 
the  Son  of  God,  than  he  had  ever  seen  before.''  He 
had,  indeed,  in  a  figure,  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketk 
away  the  sins  of  the  zvorld,  and  by  whose  atoning  blood 
all  the  promises  of  the  covenant  are  sealed,  sacrificed  be- 
fore him. 

This  was,  undoubtedly,  a  most  solemn  sacramental 
transaction,  by  which  the  holy  covenant  received  its 
highest  confirmation.  Abraham  had  before  received  the 
sacrament  ©f  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  same  general 
import  with  baptism  ;  he  new  attended  a  sacramental 
transaction,  of  the  same  general  import,  (as  was  after- 
wards the  passover,)  v/ich  the  sacrament  cf  the  holy 
supper,  in  which  the  sacrifice  of  the  Messiah  is  evi- 
dently set  fohh. 

I  now  ask  you,  dear  Sir,  candidly  and  seriously  to  re- 
view these  covenant  transactions  ;  and  then  to  "  lay  your 
hand  upon  your  heart"  and  say,  whether  your  represen- 
tations of  them  are  just.  Are  these  transactions  to  be 
treated  with  lightness  ? — If  "the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion is  a  general  topic  resorted  to  by  the  advocates  for 
infant  babtism  ;"  is  this  to  be  proclaimed,  with  an  air  of 


0 


24  LETTER    IV. 


contempt !  Can  any  person,  duly  impressed  with  the 
love  and  fear  of  the  God  of  Abraham,  attend  to  these 
promises  and  transactions,  and  the  solemn  and  affecting 
cjrcumstfinces,  with  which  they  were  accompanied  ;  and 
not,  while  his  heart  lYi-elts  within  him.,  esteem  himself 
happy,  if,  through  sovereign  grace,  he  may  only  lay,  his 
humble  claim  to  a  part  in  the  blessings,  with  which  the 
ALL  sumciENT  GoD  Condescended  to  endow  the  ve- 
nerable patriarch  and  his  seed  ? — For  myself.  Sir,  may  I 
never  be  reproached  for  any  thing  else,  but  a  firm  and 
faithful  adherence  to  this  covenant. 

But  to  return  to  the  point :  In  the  connected  view, 
now  taken  of  these  covenant  transactions,  is  there  to  be 
seen  the  least  shadow  of  foundation,  for  the  distinction, 
on  which  you  have  insisted,  betv/een  the  covenant,  to 
which  was  affixed  the  outward  seal  of  circumcision,  and 
a  former  more  important  covenant  with  Abraham  ? 

That  promises  v/ere  made,  and  rene%ved,  and  confirm- 
ed, to  Abraham,  at  several  different  times,  during  the 
space  of  about  fifty  years,  is  certain  ;  but  was  there,  Sir, 
a  new  and  distinct  covenant  made,  at  each  of  the  several 
times  of  the  Lord's  appearance  to  him,  for  the  renev/al 
and  confirmation  of  his  promises.  Is  it  not,  on  the  con- 
trary', most  evident,  that  all  the  promises  were  intimately 
connected,  had  respect  to  one  great  object,  and  were 
summed  up  in  one  covenant,  and  that  all  these  covenant 
transactions  were,  but  so  many  v>aseiy  arranged  parts  of 
one  great  and  interesting  whole  ? 

Was  not  the  establishment  of  the  church  in  his  family, 
as  one  visible  body,  the  obvious  purpose,  for  vv^liich  Abra- 
ham was  first  called  to  leave  his  native  country  ?  Was 
not  the  delay  of  this  establishment  evidently  intended  to 
afford  opportunity,  for  the  trial,  and  manifestation  of  the 
patriarch's  faith  ?  Were  rot  all  the  divine  appearances  to 
him  and  the  promises  and  renewals  of  promises,  previous 
to  the  formal  institution  of  the  church,  manifestly  pre- 
paratory to  that  high  transaction  ?  Was  not  the  sign  of 
circumcisio?i,  which  he  received,  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  faith^  which  he  hadbefer.'^  as  well  as  at  the  time, 
he  was  circumcised,-  and  by  that  sacred  seal,  were  not 
all  the  promises,  ever  made  to  him  and  liis  seed,  solemnly 
ratined  and  confirmed  ?  And  vvas  not  the  solemn  oath  of 
God,  at  the  time  of  his  last  extraordinary  ajjpearancc, 
graciou.ily  intended  to  give  to  the  same  covenant,  v/hich 


LETTER    IV.  2j 

before  was  sealed  with  the  sign  of  circumcision,  its  high- 
est possible  confirmation  ;  that  the  patriarch,  and  all  his 
faithfnl  seed  to  the  end  of  the  world,  might  have  strong 
consolation  ?  . 

To  me,  at  least,  the  whole  appears  with  a  degree  of 
clearness  not  to  be  resisted  ;  arid  I  confess,  Sir,  it  is  not 
without  astonishment,  that  I  have  observed  attempts  by 
mv!n,  who  profess  to  know  and  venerate  the  scriptures,  to 
make  out  two  distinct,  and  unconnected,  covenants  with 
Abraham  : — attempts,  in  my  view,  violently  to  put  asun- 
der, what  God  has  joined  together,  and  most  presump- 
tuouslv  to  maraud  disarrange  the  harmonious  and  beau- 
tiful plan  of  infinite  wisdom  and  grace. 

In  the  view  now  exhibited  of  Jehovah's  transactions 
with  Abraham,  all  is  harmonious  and  beautiful ;  but  upon 
your  unfounded  hypothesis,  all  is  disjointed  and  confused. 
Pardon  me,  Sir,  when  I  say  unfounded  hypothesis ; — for 
such  I  certainly  consider  it ;  and  I  see  not  but  that  you 
might  as  well  suppose  eight  covenants  with  Abraham.,  as 
the  two,  which  you  have  designated.  You  might  as  ^•'e]l 
talk  of  the  covenant  at  Ur,  or  at  Haran,  of  the  covenant 
at  Moreh,  of  the  covenant  between  Bethel  and  Ai,  of  the 
first  covenant  at  Mamre,of  the  second  covenant  at  Mam- 
re,  of  the  third  covenant  at  Mamre,  of  the  covenant  at 
Gerar,  or  Beersheba,  and  of  the  covenant  at  ?rIoriah,  as 
of  "the  covenant  of  circumcision,"  and  the  covenant 
twenty  four  years  before. 

The  promises,  first  made  to  Abraham  fotir  himdredand^ 
thirty  years  befoi-e  the  lazv  was  added  at  Horeb,  were  from 
time  to  time  renewed  until,  about  twenty  four  years  af- 
ter they  were  first  given,  they  were  solemnly  ratified  and 
sealed,  in  the  form  of  a  covenant ;  just  as  proposals,  first 
made  to  day,  may  be  renewed  at  several  diH'erent  times, 
during  any  given  period,  and,  at  length,  may  be  ratiaed, 
and  sealed,  in  the  form  of  a  civil  contract. 

I  have  more.  Sir,  to  offer  upon  this  subject,  but  lest  I 
should  be  tedious,  I  will  extend  this  Letter  no  further. 

I  ?.yi  still,  dear  Sir,  ?::c. 
Let,  D 


26 

LETTER  V. 

REV.  ist  DEAR  SIR, 

IN  my  last,  I  presented  a  connected  view  of  God^s 
covenant  transactions  with  Abraham,  from  which  it  must 
appear,  I  think,  with  great  clearness,  to  every  unprejudi- 
ced mind,  that  they  were  all  intimately  connected,  as  so 
man)-  component  parts  of  one  great  and  important  whole. 
Possibly,  however,  you  may  yet  be  disposed  to  object, 
that  the  gospel  promise,  more  especially  in  question  be- 
tween us,  viz.  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed.,  was 
not  explicitly  mentioned,  at  the  time  the  covenant  of  the 
church  was  sealed,  w'ith.  the  sign  of  circumcision;'^  and 
therefore  ought  not  to  be  considered  as  belonging  t(?lhat 
covenant. 

But  unquestionabl}'^.  Sir,  this  great  promise  belonged 
to  some  covenant.,  made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed ;  for, 
agreeably  to  your  own  acknowledgment,  it  was  to  this 
promise,  that  the  apostle,  in  my  text  and  context  referred, 
when  speaking  of  the  covenant.  I  ask  then,  to  what  cov- 
enant did  this  promise  belong  ?  If  you  say,  it  belonged  to 
that  covenant,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  year's 
befoi-e  the  law  ;  1  then  ask  again,  what  covenant  was  that  ? 
in  what  Avas  it  different  fr^  the  covenant  afterwards  rat- 
ified and  sealed  with  the  sign  of  circumcision  ?  and  for 
what  purpose  was  it  instituted  ? 

If  it  v\^as  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the  church  in 
his  family,  which  I  believe  you  will  not  undertake  to  de- 
ny, that  Abraham  was  called  away  from  his  country,  at 
the  time  the  promise,  now  in  question,  was  fii"st  given 
to  him  ;  what  shadov/  of  reason  is  there  to  suppose,  that 
this  promise  was  not,  as  others,  first  given  at  the  same 
time^  certainly  were,  included  in  the  covenant,  by  which 
the  church  in  his  family  was  formed.  And  especially. 
Sir,  when  jt  is  considered  that  this  same  promise,  for 
substance,  was  the  very  promise,  on  which,  for  two  thou- 

*  It  is  true  that  by  the  "  new  testament  martyr,"  Stephen, 
this  covenant  is  designated  as  "the  covenant  of  circumcision." 
Chi'ist  also  says  of  the  sacramental  cup.,  This  is  the  new  testa' 
merj.  Both  expressions  are  evidently  figurative.  The  sacramentai 
cup  is  not  the  new  testament  itself,  Imt  a  seal  of  the  new  testa- 
ment ;  and  circumcision  was  not  the  covenant  itself,  but  a  seal 
of  the  covenant  By  applying  figurative  expressions,  in  a  literal 
sense,  many  have  been  niisled. 


LETTER  V.  27 

sand  years  htiore,  the  church  had  rested;  does  it  not 
amount  to  a  moral  certainty  that  it  was  continued,  as  still 
the  foundation  of  the  church,  under  the  Abrahamic  and 
every  succeeding  dispensation,  and  therefore  was  includ- 
ed in  the  Abrahamic  covenant  ? 

I  here  repeat  the  question  ;  is  it  to  be  believed,  that 
the  church  of  the  living  God,  when  advanced  to  an  im- 
proved state,  and  formed  as  one  visible  body,  in  the  fami- 
ly of  the  consiitntedjather  of  the  faithful^  was  removed 
from  the  glorious  foundation,  on  which,  for  two  thousand 
years  before,  it  had  securely  rested,  and  placed  upon  an 
entirely  different,  and  merely  temporal  ground  ?  Cer- 
tainly this  is  not  to  be  believed,  without  some  proof,  in- 
finitely stronger  than  your  mere  assumption. 

The  truth  is,  at  no  less  than  eight  different  times  the 
Lord  appeared  to  Abraham,  and  gave  and  renewed  to  him 
promises ;  but  on  each  of  those  occasions,  there  was  seme 
variation  with  respect  to  the  proniises  particularized. 
But  although  there  was  a  variation,  there  was  yet  a  sim- 
ilarity, in  the  promises,  sufficient  clearly  to  shew,  that  they 
were  all  intimately  connected,  that  they  all  had  reference 
to  one  great  object,  and  all  belonged  to  one  comprehen- 
sive covenant. 

But  I  have  further  to  obs«rve,  that  if  the  promise,  In 
thee  and  thy  seed,  shall  all  nations  he  blessed,  was  not  spe- 
cially particularized,  at  the  time  the  covenant  was  sealed 
with  the  sign  of  circumcision  ;  it  was  nevertheless,  evi- 
dently comprised  in  the  comprehensive  promises  ex- 
pressly mentioned  on  that  occasion.  You  yourself,  in- 
deed, seem  to  be  apprehensive,  that  it  might  be  compri- 
sed in  the  comprehensive  promise,  A  Father  of  many 
nations  have  I  made  thee.  But  this  promise  you  attempt  to 
explain  away,  by  connecting  it  with  other  promiees. 

The  *  expressions,'  A  Father  of  jnany  nations  have  I 
made  thee^  and  /  will  make  thee  exceeding  fj^itfid^  and 
I  ivill  make  nations  of  thee^  and  kings  shall  come  out 
f  thee.,  "  TAKEN  TOGETHER,"  vou  assert,  "  do  not  a- 
mount  to  a  promise,  that  any  nations  should  be  bless- 
ed in  Abraham."  Had  not  your  manner,  Sir,  been  s-* 
possitive.  I  might  possibly  have  used  the  freedom,  un- 
der authority  of  the  apostle,  directly  to  contradict  your 
assertion.  But  as  the  case  now  is,  I  take  leave  to  ask,  if, 
by  the  promise,  A  father  of  many  nations  I  have  made,  or». 
'constituted,  thee,  Abraham  was  made,  or  roifstituted,  the. 


28  LETTER    V. 

father  of  believers  of  all  nations  ;  then,  were  net  believers 
of  all  nations,  by  the  same  divine  promise,  constituted 
his  childreji  and  heirs  ?  And  if,  by  this  promise,  believ- 
ers of  all  nations  are  constituted  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham, and  heirs  of  his  blessings  ;  ihen  does  it  not  clearly 
amount  to  a  promise,  that  in  him  all  naticns  shmld  be 
blessed?  Is  it  not  by  becoming  his  children  and  heirs, 
that  any  are  blessed  in  him  ? 

But,  my  dear  Sir,  that,  by  this  promise  Abraliam  was 
constituted  the  father  of  believers  of  all  nations,  and,  cor- 
relatively,  believers  of  all  nations  were  constituted  his 
children  and  heiis,  was  certainly  the  apostles  opinion  ; 
for  he  has  quoted  the  promise  to  this  very  purpose. 
Therefore  it  is  cffaith^  says  he,  that  it  might  be  by  grace; 
to  the  end  the  promise  7night  be  sure  to  all  the  peed  ; 
net  t9  that  onli/,  which  is  of  the  laxu^  but  to  that^  also.,  xvhich 
is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham.,  who  is  the  tather  of  us 
ALL,  as  it  is  -written^  A  father  of  many  nations  have 
I  MADE  THEE.*  Thus  the  apostle  considered  this  pro- 
mise as  having  respect  to  believers  of  all  nations,  as  A- 
braham'o  constituted  children  and  heirs  ;  and,  therefore, 
?.s  clearly  "amounting  to  a  promise"  that  in  him  all  na- 
tions should  be  bUised. 

Whether  it  was  for  v.'ant  of  duly  considering  the  con- 
nexion, in  v.iiich  this  promise,  in  the  Abrahamjc  cove- 
nant stands,  and  which  you  suppose  so  important  to  be 
observed,  that  the  apostle  held  an  opinion  respecting  it, 
so  opposite  to  yours,  I  leave.  Sir,  for  you  to  determine  \ 
In  the  mean  time,  until  you  ai'c  pleased  to  ofTer  some 
proof,  other  than  your  bare  assertion,  hov/ever  positive, 
that  the  apostle  was  in  an  error,  you  >vili  excuse  me,  if  I 
give  the  preference  to  his  opinion. 

On  the  \vhoic,  the  promises,  A  father  of  many  nations 
have  I  made  thee., — anU,  Iji  thee  shall  all  nations  be  bles- 
sed, are  clearly  correlative  promises  ;  and,  as  such, 
the  one  essentially  implies  the  other.  For  when  the 
t>atr;arch's  nan.e  v.as  char.ged  from  Abram  to  Abraham., 
imd  he  was  divinely  constituted  the  faiher  of  believers 
of  ail  naiiona;  believers  of  all  nations  were,  by  the  same 
divine  act,  ccrrelatively  constituted  his  children  ar.d  heirc, 
and  it  is  b}'  thus  being  his  children  and  heirs,  that  any 
are  rediv  blessed  in  him..  This,  Sir,  I  consider  as  clear 
and  direct  scripture  proof,  that  the  promise,  In  thee  shali 
all  nations  be  blessed.,  was  essentially  included  in  that  co- 

'       *  Rorr..  iv.  16,  17. 


LETTER    VI.  29 

venant,  which  was  established  with  Abraham  and  his 
seed,  at  the  time  he  was  formally  constituted  the  father 
of  all  nations,  and  as  a  sacred  seal^  received  the  sign  of 
circioncision. 

To  this  direct  proof,  much  more,  if  possible,  still 
clearer  and  stronger,  might  be  added,  some  of  which,  I 
propose  to  offer  in  my  next  Letter. 

Your'*,  dear  Sir,  &c. 


LETTER  VL 


REV.  Isf  DEAR  SIR, 

AS  the  issue  of  the  serious  controversy,  between 
t]fie  Paidobaptists  and  the  Antipsedobaptists,  appears,  at 
present,  to  be  suspended  on  the  question,  whether  the 
ancient  gospel  promise.  In  thee,  and  in  thy  seed  shall 
all  nations  be  blessed,  were  included  in  the  covenant,  es- 
tablished with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and  sealed  v/ith 
the  sign  of  circumcision  ;  I  shall  be  justified,  I  think,  in 
giving,  and  requesting  you  to  give,  to  this  question,  very 
particular  attention.  Agreeably,  therefore,  to  rny  pro- 
mise, in  my  last  letter,  in  addition  to  the  evidence  al- 
ready exhibited,  that  this  great  promise  rvas  included  in 
the  covenant,  I  now  proceed  to  offer  further  proof  to  the 
same  important  point. 

In  the  fourth  of  Romans,  speaking  of  Abraham,  the 
apostle  says  :  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision^ 
a  seal  of  the  rightecusyiess  of  the  faith,  zohich  he  had^ 
being  ijet  uncirciimcised ;  that  he  might  be,  that  is,  might 
be  solemnly  constituted,  the  father  of  all  them  that  be- 
lieve,  though  they  he  not  circitriicised ;  that  righteousness 
:night  be  imputed  to  them  also  ;  or  that  they  might  be 
blessed  in  hiiij.  The  char;£<;e3,  v.hich,  with  so  much  zeal, 
you  have  been  pleased  to  advance  against  m.e,  with  res- 
pect to  this  passage  ;  and  the  freedom  v;hich  you  have 
thought  yourself  v/arranted  to  use  with  the  apostle,  I 
propose  so  consider  in  another  place.  At  present,  I 
have  only  to  observe,  that  ihe  passage,  as  now  quoted, 
rests  upon  i'.s  cv/n  bottom  j  and   if  the  two   exegetical 


50  LETTER  VI. 

clauses,  which  I  have  inserted,  be  not  correct,  you  are 
at  liberty  to  reject  them. 

I  ask,  then,  does  not  the  apostle,  in  this  passage,  di- 
rectly refer  to  the  establishment  of  the  church  in  Abra- 
ham's family  ?  Does  he  not  say,  that,  on  that  memora- 
ble occasion,  Abraham  received  the  sign  of  circumcision^ 
a  SEAL  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which  he  had, 
yet  being  imcircmncised  ?  Is  it  not  clearly  his  sense,  that 
Abraham  received  the  sacred  seal,  that  thus  he  might  he 
formally  constituted  the  father,  of  believers  of  all  na- 
tions ?  And  does  he  not  say,  or  clearly  teach,  that  all  this 
svas  done,  that  unto  believers  of  all  nations,  as  the  patri^ 
arch's  constituted  seed,  righteousness,  even  the  righte- 
ousness of  faith,  might  he  imputed? — But,  if,  at  the  time 
the  church  was  established  in  his  family,  the  patriarch 
was  thus  solemnly  constituted,  the  father  of  believers  of 
all  nations,  that  unto  them,  as  his  constituted  seed  and 
heirs,  the  righteousness  of  faith  might  be  imputed  ; — then 
I  ask  finally,  was  not  the  promise.  In  thee  shall  all  nations 
be  blessed,  essentially  included  in  that  covenant,  by  which 
the  church  was  then  established,  and  to  which  the  sign 
of  circumcision  was  affixed,  as  a  sacred  seal  ?  This,  again, 
must  be  admitted  as  clear  and  direct  proof. 

But  there  is  yet,  Sir,  another  consideration,  too  in^^ 
portant  to  be  omitted  in  this  argument. 

Abraham  was  not  only  an  individual  believer,  but,  as 
it  already  sulHciently  appears,  he  was  divinely  consti- 
tuted the  patriarch  and  representative  of  the  church. 
Was  the  promise,  then,  In  thee,  and  in  thy  seed,  shall  all 
nations  be  blessed,  merely  personal,  or  was  it  of  a  public 
nJiture.  Did  it  belong  to  Abraham  only,  as  a  favored 
individual,  or  did  it  belong  to  him  in  his  public  capacity, 
as  the  patriarch  and  representative  of  the  church  ;  and 
consequently  to  the  church,  of  which  he  was  the  patri- 
arch and  representative  ? 

This  promise,  it  is  acknowledged,  on  all  hands,  com- 
prised the  INIessiah  and  all  the  blessings  of  his  kingdom. 
It  vvas,  for  substance,  the  very  same  promise  with  that 
first  given  in  Paradise,  that  the  seed  of  the  wojnan  should 
bruise  the  serpent's  head  ;  and  on  which  the  church,  while 
in  the  family  state,  for  two  thousand  years,  had  rested. 
It  was  in  fact,  the  gospel,  as  preached  to  Abraham,  in 
those  early  times  ;  and  which,  afterwards,  at  sundry  times 
and  in  divers  manners,  was  more  fully  and  clearly  un? 
folded. 


LETTER    VI.  3t 

I  ask,  then,  again,  did  this  great  promise  belong  to 
Abraham  as  a  favored  individual  only,  or  did  it  belong 
to  him,  in  his  public  capacity  also  j  and  consequently  to 
the  church  of  which  he  was  the  constituted  patriarch  and 
representative  ?  Unquestionably  it  belonged  to  him,  ia 
his  public  capacity,  and  to  that  church,  to  "which  pertain- 
ed the  adoption^  and  the  glory ^  and  the  covenants^  and  the 
giving  of  the  laxv^  and  the  service  of  Gcd^  and  the  pro- 
mises. 

Ves,  Sir,  this  promise  always  belonged  to  the  church 
of  God  ;  and,  therefore,  was  alv.ays  included  in  the 
covenant  by  which  the  church  was  formed.  Accordingly 
as  a  covenant  promise,  it  was  expresslv  renev/ed  to  Isaac, 
and  to  Jacob  ;  and  in  after-ages,  its  renev,  al  was  oftea 
repealed  to  the  Abrahamic  church,  with  increasing  clear- 
ness and  fulness. 

After  the  death  of  Abraham,  the  Lord  appeared,  on  a 
special  occasion,  to  Isaac,  and  said.  Sojourn  in  this  land., 
and  I  will  be  with  thee  and  will  bless  thee  ;  for  unto  thee 
andtinto  thy  seed  zvill  I  give-  all  these  countries^  and  I 

WILL  PERFORM    THE    OATH,    WHICH    I    SWARE  UNTO  A- 

BRAHAM  THY  FATHER.  And  I  will  make  thy  seed  to 
mxdtiplif  as  the  stars  of  heaven  ;  and -will  give  unto  thy 
.feed all  these  countries.,  and  in»thy  seed  shall  all  the 
NATIONS  OF  the  EARTH  BE  BLESSED  :  becoitsc  that  Abra- 
ham obeyed  my  voice.,  and  kept  my  charge.,  mif  command- 
ments find  my  lazvs,^  You  will  be  pleased  to  observe. 
Sir,  that,  as  Abraham  in  the  covenant  of  the  church  was 
expressly  required  to  walk  before  God,  and  be  perfect.,  as  a 
condition  of  the  promised  blessings  ;  so  here  the  Lord 
expressly  assures  Isaac,  the  heir  of  the  promises,  that 
because  Abraham  had  obeyed.,  the  promised  blessings 
should  be  conferred. 

You  will  not,  I  believe,  undertake  to  denv,  that  this 
was,  undoubtedly,  a  renewal  v.ith  Isaac  of  the  covenant, 
established  vv'ith  his  father,  and  the  seal  of  v.hich  was  in 
Isaac's  flesh.  But  in  this  renev/al,  the  promise.  In  thy 
seed  shall  all  the  natioKs  of  the  egrlhbeblessed,  is  not  only 
implicitly,  but  explicitly,  included.  How  different, 
Sir,  is  thvs  from  v/hat  you  have  been  pleased  to  asset t ! 

To  Jacob,  when  at  Bethel,  on  his  v.-ay  from  Beersheba 
to  Padanaram,  the  Lord  appeared,  and  said^  I  am   the 

*  Gen.  xxvi.  2 — 5. 


•32  LETTER    VI. 

Lord  God  (jf  Alraham  thy  father^  and  the  God  of  Isaac : 
the  land  ruher con  thou  liest  to  thee  v.nll  I  give  it^  and  ta 
thy  seed,'  and  thij  seed  shall  he  (is  the  dust  of  the  earth  ; 

AND  IN  THEE,  AND  IN  THY  SEED,  SHALL  ALL  THE  FA- 
MILIES OF  THE  EARTH  BE  BLESSED.*  In  this  renewal 
of  the  coven-.lDt  with  Jacob,  almost  a  hundred  and  forty 
years  after  it  was  sealed  with  the  sign  of  circumcision^ 
the  great  promi^s  in  question,  was,  again,  explicitly  con- 
cluded. 

When  blessing  his  sons,  just  before  his  decease,  Jacob, 
by  the  spirit  of  prophecy  said  ;  The  sceptre  shall  not  de- 
part from  fudah  nor  a  laxvgiver  froth  betxveen  his  feet^ 
until  Shiloh  come  ;  and  unto  him  shaLl  the  gather- 
ing OF  THE  PEOPLE  BEf — All  the  cuds  of  the  earthy  said 
David,  by  the  same  prophetic  spirit,  shall  reraember^  and 
turn  unto  tlie  Lord ;  and  all  the  kindreds  of  the  nations 
shall  ivorship  before  thee.  A  seed  shall  serve  hirn^  and  it 
shall  be  accounted  unto  the  Lord  for  a  generation.^  ■^>^, 
that  day^  said  the  Lord  by  the  prophet  Isaiah,  there  shall 
be  a  ROOT  ofjessc,  lohich  shall  stand  for  an  ensign  of  the 
people  :  to  it  shall  the  gentiles  seek,  and  hi^  rest 
SHALL  BE  glorious — Itis  a  light  things  that  thou  shoiddst 
be  my  servayit^  to  raise  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob,  and  to  rC' 
store  the  preserved  of  Israel;    I  will  also  give  thee 

FOR  A  light  to  the  GeNTILES,  THAT  THOU  MAYEST  ES 
MY    SALVATION    TO    THE     ENDS    OF    THE    EARTH. Arise 

shine  for  thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is 
risen  upon  thee.      And  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to 

THY  light  and  KiNGS  TO  THE  BRIGHTNESS  OF  THY  RIS- 
ING. Thy  gates  shall  be  open  continually  ;  they  shall  not 
be  shut  day  nor  7?ight,  that  men  may  bring  unto  thee 

THE     FORCES    of     THE     GeNTILES,'     AND     THAT     THEIR 

Kings  may  be  brought.jI 

These,  and  numerous  other  similar  passages,  you  will 
certainly  acknowledge  to  be  of  the  same  general  import, 
with  the  assurance  first  given  in  Paradise,  that  the  seed 
of  the  xvoman  should  bruise  the  serpenfs  head,  and  v/ith 
the  gracious  promi'^e  to  Abrahara,  to  Isaac  and  to  Jacob, 
In  thee,  and  thy  seed  shell  all  the  7iati07is  cf  the  earth  be 
blessed.  They  are  all  the  game  gospel,  morf  clearly  and 
fully  unfolded,  as,  from  age  to  age,  the  work  of  redemp- 

»  Gen,  xxviii.  13.  14.  f  ^b.  :-:i.  lo  i  Psalni  x^ii.  27,  20.  |'  Isa. 
xi.  10.  v!ix.  6.  b:.  l—U. 


LETTER    VI.  S3 

tion  proceeded,  and  the  church  was  advanced.  But  these, 
you  will  please  to  observe,  were  all  addressed  to  the 
church;  to  the  church  divinely  formed  in  the  family  of 
Abraham  ;  to  the  ancient  Zion  of  the  Holy  One  of  hrael: 
and  were,  therefore,  essentially  included,  in  the  covenant, 
by  which  the  church  was  established. 

Accordingly  Zacharias,  in  the  grateful  effusion  of  his 
heart,  in  view  of  the  birth  of  the  long  expected  Messiah, 
says,  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel ;  for  he  hathvisit- 
ed  and  redeemed  hh  people,  and  hath  raised  zip  an  horn  cf 
salvation  for  us  ifi  the  house  of  his  servant  David;  as 

HE  SPOKE  BY  THE  MOUTH  OF  HIS  HOLY  PROPHETS,  WHICH 
HAVE  BEEK  SIVCE  THE  WORLD  BEGAX-^TO  PERFORM 
THE  MEftCY  PROMISED  TO  OUR  FATHERS,  AND  TO  RE- 
MEMBER HIS   HOLY     COVENANT;    THE    OATH    WHICH    HE 

SWARE  TO  OUR  FATHER  ABRAHAM.  In  this  passage 
£gain,  we  have  clear  and  decisive  proof,  that  all  the  ?r.ercy 
to  be  performed,  by  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  had  been 
promised  to  the  fathers,  had  been  spoken  of  to  the  church. 
by  the  holy  prophets,  from  the  bc-ginning  of  the  zvorld, 
and  was  comprised  in  the  holy  covenant,  sealed  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed,  by  the  sign  of  circumcision,  and  con- 
firmed by  an  oath. 

I  will  here  only  add  the  direct  testimony  of  the  apos- 
tle Peter.  After  the  ascension  of  the  Saviour,  address-' 
ing  himself  to  the  Jews,  assembled  at  the  Beautiful  gate 
of  the  temple,  he  took  occasion  to  say,  Te  are  the  chil- 
dren of  the  prophets,  and  of  tire  covenant,  which  God 
MADE  WITH  our  FATHERS,  soying  unto  Abraham,  And- 

IN  THY  SEED  SHALL  ALL  THE    KINDREDS  OF  THE  EARTH 

BE  BLESSED.  This  single  testimony,  Sir,  is  of  itself  cc;n- 
clusive  against  you.  This  very  promise,  which  you  are 
pleased  repe-atedl}^  to  assert  had  no  connexion  with  the 
covenant  of  the  Abrahamic  church,  is  here,  by  this  dis- 
tinguished apostle,  brought  forward  as  a  principal  article 
of  that  covenant :  Yes,  Sir,  a  principal  article  of  that  co- 
venant, of  which  the  Jews  were  declared  to  be  the  chil- 
dren. 

Is  it  not,  Sir,  a  very  great  infelicity,  when  a  senti- 
ment, or  scheme,  supported  by  bold  assertions,  goes  so 
directly  in  the  face  df  both  the  C'ld  Testament  and 
New  ? 

With  du«  consideration,  your,  &c. 
Let.  E 


LETTER  Vir. 

REV.  IJf  BEAR  SIR, 

IF  you  have  offered  any  thing,  entitled  to  be  called 
argument,  by  which  to  shew,  that  the  ancient  Gospel  pre- 
7nise  was  not  included  in  the  covenant  of  the  ancient 
church,  it  is  what  you  have  said  v.'^ith  reference  to  the 
16th  verse  of  mv  context.  For  reailv,  Sir,  I  consider 
your  "mathematical  demonstration,"  which  vou  appear  to 
have  regarded  with  such  parental  complacency,  as  of  no 
more  pertinency,  or  avail,  than  v.'ould  have  been  a 
^'mathematical  demonstration,"  that  the  renewal  of  the 
promises  to  Isaac  was  about  a  hundred  years,  and  to  Ja- 
cob, about  a  hundred  and  sixty  years,  after  they  were 
first  sealed  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  with  the  sign  of 
circumcision. 

In  thy  seed  .shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  bleessed^ 
— "  That  we  might  not  mistake  this,"  yon  are  pleased  to 
observe,  "as  referring  to  the  promise  made  in  the  co- 
venant of  circumcision,  and  so  to  Abraham's  natural  seed, 
the  apostle  adds,  He  saith  not^  Andto  seeds,  as  of  many ; 
hut  as  of  ONE,  and  to  thy  seed  which  is  Christ. 
The  promises  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision  M'ere  to 
many  ;  to  Abraham's  seed  generally.''^  And  in  your 
ow'n  manner  you  proceed  to  ask,  "  Will  any  person  pre- 
sume to  say,  that  these  promises  referred  to  Christ,  or 
were  made  to  him  ;  or  that  he  was  the  seed  here  in- 
tended ?  Were  kings  to  come  out  of  his  loins,  and  na- 
tions to  be  made  of  him  ?  Was  the  land  of  Canaan  pro- 
mised to  Christ  for  an  everlasting  possession  ?"* 

In  my  turn,  Sir,  permit  me  to  ask,  "  Will  any  person 
presume  to  say,"  that  the  promises  were  not  made  to 
Abraham,  as  well  as  to  his  seedV  Did  not  "  kings  come 
out  of  his  Isins,"  and  were  not  "nations  made  of  him?" 
— Was  not  "the  land  of  Canaan"  also  given  "  to  Christ 
for  an  everlasting  possession,"  in  the  most  important 
sense  ;  literally,  in  subserviency  to  his  great  work  of 
redemption,  and  typically,  in  that  better  country,  which 
is  an  heavenly  P  And  is  it  not,  in  scripture,  called.  Thy 
LAND,  O  Immanuel? — These  questions,  Sir,  are  at  least, 
I  think,  as  pertinent  as  your's. 

In  contradistinction  to  seed  as  of  one.,  you  undertake 

*  Appendix,  p.  261. 


LETTER    VII.  35 

to  say,  that  "  the  promises,  in  the  covenant  of  chxumci- 
sion  were  to  many  ;  to  Abraham's  seed  generally  ;"  and 
hence  you  condude,  that  the  apostle  must  have  "  rea- 
soned from  a  promise  entirely  distinct  from  them." 
— With  great,  seriousness.  Sir,  you  will  suffer  me  to 
ask  ;  did  you  intend,  that  your  readers  should  under- 
stand that,  in  what  you  call  "the  covenant  of  circumci- 
sion," the  promises  were  made  not  to  se^d^  as  of  sn<r, 
that  is,  one  seed  ;  but  to  seeds,  as  of  maiiy  7  If  you  did 
not ;  what  pertinency  is  there  in  your  remark  ?- — If  you 
did,  I  must  take  leave  to  ask,  further,  by  what  authority 
did  you  attempt  to  lead  your  readers  into  such  an  under- 
standing of  the  subject  ? 

Is  not  the  word,  "  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision," 
both  in  the  translation,  and  in  the  original  text,  not  plu- 
ral, seeds,  but  singular,  seed  P  And  both  in  the  transla- 
tion, and  in  the  original,  is  not  the  very  same  word  used, 
when  God  savs  Itvill be  a  God  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed 
after  thee  :  as  when  he  says,  and  in  thy  seed  shall  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  be  ilessed. 

I  must  be  indulged  the  freedom,  then,  to  repeat  the 
■question  ;  By  what  authority  did  you  attempt  to  make 
your  readers  suppose,  that  in  "  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision" the  promises  were  not  to  seed,  as  of  one,  but  to 
seeds,  as  of  many ;  and  thence  to  conclude,  that,  as  the 
promise,  from  which  the  apostle  reasons,  was  hot  to  seeds 
of  many,  but  to  seed,  as  of  07ie,  this  promise  could  not 
be  included  in  that  covenant  ? — Happily  for  the  unlearn- 
ed, the  v/ord  of  God,  in  this  case,  is  plain. 

Surely,  Sir,  you  must  have  been  strangely  forgetful, 
or  else  must  have  presumed  very  far  on  the  credulity  of 
your  readers,  when,  in  your  haste  to  make  out  your  two 
covenants  with  Abraham,  you  hazarded  the  assertion,  that 
**  the  promises,  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  were  to 
Abraham's  seed,"  (obviously  meaning  his  natural  seed,) 
generally^  According  to  yoiu-  theory,  the  promise  of 
Canaan  for  a  possession  was  a  very  capital  part  of  the 
covenant.  But  was  this  promise.  Sir,  made  to  Abra- 
ham's seed  generally  f  Was  it  made  to  his  seed  in  the 
lines  of  Ishmael,  and  of  the  sons  of  Keturah,  as  well  as 
in  the  line  of  Isaac  ? — and  in  the  line  of  Esau,  as  well  as 
in  the  line  of  Jacob  ? — No,  Sir  ;  it  was  only  to  his  seed 
in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  that  the  land  of  Canaau 
was  given. 


36  LETTER    VIT. 

It  was  thus  also,  with  respect  to  the  other  promises  of 
the  covenant.  They  were  not  "  to  Abraham's  seed  ge- 
nerally^'' but  were  under  a  special  limitation.  For^  says 
the  apostle,  they  are  not  all  Israel^  who  are  of  Israel  ,■ 
neither  because  they  are  the  seed  of  AbrahatJiy  are  they 
ell  CHILDREN,  that  is,  in  the  covenant  sense  ;  but  the 
CHILDREN  or  THE  PROMISE,  that  is,  those  who,  by  faith, 
are  brought  within  the  provision  of  the  promise,  are 
COUNTED  FOR  THE  SEED.  It  appears,  then,  the  promises 
were  not  "to  Abraham's  seed  generally,''''  even  of  the  line 
of  Isaac  and  Jacob  ;  for  only  a  part,  even  of  the  nation 
pf  Israel,  were  children  of  the  promise. 

Those  .only,  with  respect  to  whom  the  conditions  of 
the  covenant  were  fulfilled,  and  who,  consequently,  walk- 
ed in  the  steps  of  Abraham's  faith,  were  counted  for  the 
seed^  to  whom  thg  promises  were  made.  This  is  the 
apostle's  representation  ;  and  in  perfect  agreement  with 
this,  is  the  representation  of  the  matter  in  nvy  "  Two 
Discourses." 

The  nation  of  Israel  at  large,  indeed,  were,  in  due 
time,  put  into  the  possession  of  Canaan,  and,  as  the  des- 
cendants of  Abraham,  enjoyed  many  privileges  ;  but  it 
was  because  there  was  a  true  seed  among  them,  and  not 
because  they  were  all  entitled  to  the  promises.  Even 
the  land  of  Canaan,  v/hich  was  only  a  type  and  pledge  of 
the  h^a^•enly  inheritance  of  the  church,  belonged,  ac- 
cording to  the  promise,  only  to  the  true  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, and  v/as  to  be  holden  only  by  faith.  Hence,  that 
evil  generation,  whose  carcases  fell  in  the  wilderness^ 
could  not  enter  in,  and  take  possession  of  the  land,  because 
of  unbelief ;  and  because  of  unbelief  the  v.'hole  posterity 
of  Abraham  have,  for  many  ages,  been  excludecl  from  it. 

So  plain,  it  is,  that,  although  the  community  of  Israel, 
at  large,  enjoyed  many  great  and  precious  privileges,  for 
the  sake  of  the  true  seed  among  them,  just  as  the  nomi- 
nal mem'uers  of  the  church  now  do  ;  yet  the  promises 
of  the  covenant  v/tre  only  to  the  true  seed. 

No,  Sir,  the  apostle  did  not  say,  neither  did  he  im- 
ply, that,  "  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  the  pro- 
mises were  not  to  seed,  as  of  one,  but  to  seeds,  as  of  ma- 
ny ;  nor  could  he,  for  the  fact  was  certainly  otherwise. 
Your  construction,  then,  is  mantfestly  incorrect  j  and 
involves,  I  conceive,  a  ver}'  material  error. 

To  Ahraka;:t  and  his  seed  xoere  the  promisee  T?iadf, 


LKTTER    VII.  37 

Jtle  saith  not.  And  to  seeds,  as  qfiiAHY;  but  as  of  oke. 
And  to  thy  SEED,  which  is  Christ.  You  and  your 
brethren,  generally,  if  I  rightly  understand  you,  construe 
the  oNt,  in  this  passage,  as  meaning  one  individual^  or 
exclusively  Christ  in  person.  This,  Sir,  I  believe  to  be 
incorrect ;  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  grammatical  con- 
struction of  the  text ;  and  directly  repugnant,  as  well  to 
the  tenor  of  the  apostle's  argument,  as  to  his  express 
declarations. 

In  the  twelfth  chapter  of  the  first  Episile  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, the  apostle  says.  For  as  the  body  is  one,  and 
hath  many  members,  arid  all  the  members  of  that  one  bO' 
dy,  being  many  are  one  body  ;  so  also  is  Christ  :  that 
is,  Christ  is  one  body,  with  jnany  members.  Here  by 
Christ,  we  are  certainly  to  understand,  not  the  Saviour, 
in  his  own  person,  exclusively  ;  but  the  Saviour  and  his 
church,  collectively,  as  one.  Analagous  to  this,  rs  the 
plain,  grammatical,  construction  of  the  text,  now  in  ques* 
lion  betv,'een  us<  Jle  saith  not.  And  to  seeds  as  of  ma- 
ny, that  is,  many  seeds  ;  but  as  of  one,  that  is,  of  one 
■seed.  And  to  thy  seed  zuhichis  Christ:  not  the  Sa- 
viour, exclusively,  in  person;  hnt  the  Saviour  axid  his 
church  as  one.  For  all  -who  are  Christ's  are  Abraham's 
SEED,  and  jointly  v/ith  Christ,  are  heirs  according  to 
THE  promise.  This  is  the  plain  sense  of  the  text ;  and, 
in  this  sense,  the  text  is  directly  in  point,  in  the  chain  of 
the  apostle's  argument. 

In  the  v/hoie  connexion,  the  apostle  is  expressly  upon 
the  subject  of  justification  by  faith.  This  doctrine  he 
argues,  in  this  place,  as  also  in  the  fourth  of  Romans, 
from  the  promises  of  the  covenant  with  Abraham  and 
his  seed.  And  to  shew,  that,  according  to  these  pro- 
mises, those  only,  who  by  faith  are  one  in  Christ,  are  to 
be  justified  ,•  he  observes,  that  the  promises  were  made, 
not  to  seeds,  as  of  many,  but  to  seed,  as  of  one  ;  not  to  a 
a  diversity  of  seeds,  but  to  that  particular  seed,  v/hc,  by 
faith,  are  G'-fi^miz  i.i  Christ  fesus.  In  this  sense  of 
the  text  his  argument  is  clear  and  conclusive.  For  if 
the  promises  were  made  only  to  such  as  by  faith  are  one 
in  Christ ;  then  it  is  plain,  that,  according  to  the  pro- 
mises, it  is  only  by  faith,  that  any  can  be  justified. 

But  to  make  the  apostle  say,  tluit  the  promises  were 
made  to  Christ  in  person,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others, 
as  well  those  xvho  are  of  faith,  ais  those  who  are  not ;  is 


38  LtTTER    Vir. 

it  inot  to  make  him  say  what  Is  palpably  impertinent,  as 
well  as  manifestly  untrue.  According  to  your  construc- 
tion of  the  text,  his  argument  would  stand  thus  :  The 
promises  were  made  to  Christy  as  the  one  seed  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  all  others,  both  believers  and  unbelievers  ; 
therefore,  according  to  the  promises,  those  only  who  be- 
lieve can  be  justified  ! — "Does  the  apostle,  Sir,  reason  at 
this  rate  ?" 

But,  by  your  construction  of  this  text,  you  not  only 
make  the  apostle  reason  absurdly ;  but  you  make  him 
say  that  which  is  untrue  :  Nay,  you  make  him  contra- 
dict, directly,  his  own  declarations.  For  in  this  very 
chapter,  instead  of  saying,  that  Christ  in  person,  exclu- 
sively, is  the  one  seed;  he  says,  expressly,  7/"  ye  be 
Christ*s,  then  are  Y-E  Abraham^s  sezd,  and ntiKs  accor- 
ding to  the  PROMISE  ;  and  in  the  ninth  of  Romans,  with 
equal  explicitness,  he  says,  the  children  (not  Christ  in 
person  merely,  but  the  children  J  of  the  promise  are 
counted  for  the  seed.  But  will  you,  Sir,  persist,  in  mak- 
ing the  apostle  so  palpably  contradict  himself  ? 

I  have  no  difficulty,  in  admitting,  for  I  believe  it  to  be 
true,  as  in  my  third  Letter  I  have  shewn,  that  "  the  wo- 
man's seed,  who  was  to  bruise  the  serpent's  head,  was 
also  the  seed  promised  to  Abraham,  in  whom"  all  na- 
tions should  be  blessed.  But  I  also  believe,  with  the  ex- 
cellent Mr.  Scott,  and  the  principal  Commentators  on 
the  scriptures,  that  "  Christ  himself  is  preemeJiently  the 
seed  of  the  woman,"  and  that  "  in  Christ  ail  his  genuine 
disciples  are  included^  as  members  of  his  m3'Stical  body." 
And  as,  by  the  seed  of  the  xucnan  by  whom  the  serpent's 
head  was  to  be  bruised,  we  are  to  understand  Christ,  and 
all  true  believers  as  one  in  him  ;  so  by  the  seed  of  Abra^ 
ham^  in  whom  all  nations  v/ere  to  be  blessed  we  are  also 
to  understand  Christ  and  his  people  in  the  same  collec- 
tive sense.  Accordingly,  the  apostle  says,  There  is  nei- 
ther jferv  nor  Greeks  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free  ^  there 
is  neither  Tnale  nor  female ;  for  ye  are  ail  one  in  Christ 
jfesTis.     And  if  ye  be  Christ's  then^  are  ye  Abraham^s 

SEED,  AKD  HEIRS  ACCORDING  TO  THE  PROMISE. 

I  am  luUy  aware,  Sir,  that  you  will  reluctantly  give  up 
your  favorite  construction  of  the  "one"  seed,  which  is 
Christ  ;  for  it  is  a  very  principal  Antipaedobaptist  fort- 
ress ;  nay,  it  is  your  citadel.  But  are  you,  Sir,  prepared 
to  abide  the  consequences  of  holding  this  construction  i 


LETTER  VII.  39 

Some  of  the  consequences,  I  will  now  take  leave  to  pre- 
sent in  one  view. 

By  holding  the  construction,  that  by  the  one  seect^  we 
are  to  understand  Christ,  exclusively,  in  person,  you  are 
led  to  make  the  assertion,  that  "the  promises,  in  the  co- 
venant of  circumcision,  were  not  to  seed,  as  of  one,  but 
to  many,  to  Abraham's  seed  generally  ;"  which  is  direct-- 
Iv  contrary  to  the  fact.  By  holding  this  construction, 
\ou  not  onlv  make  the  apostle  reason  most  impertinently 
and  absurdly  ;  but  what  is  still  more,  you  make  him  di- 
rectly contradict  himself.  If  you  still  hold,  that  the  pro- 
mises were  made  onlv  to  Christ  in  person,  then,  of  con- 
sequence, you  must  hold,  that  there  are  no  gospel  pro- 
mises to  bt'lievers  :  for  according  to  your  own  just  ac- 
knowledgment, the  promises  made  to  the  one  seed,  com- 
prise the  whole  gospel. — But  this  is  not  all. 

If  you  still  insist  upon  your  construction,  it  will  be 
incumbent  on  you  clearly  to  point  out  the  scriptural  dis- 
tinction between  the  one  seed,  to  whom  the  promises 
were  made,  and  the  seed,  xvho  arc  heirs  according  to  the 
promise,  and  -who  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesiis.  Accor- 
ding to  your  hypothesis,  the  seed,  -who  are  heirs  according 
to  the  promise,  are  not  the  seed  mentioned  in  the  cove- 
nant of  the  Abrahamic  church  ;  for  in  that  covenant,  you 
say,  "the  promises  were  to  Abraham's  (natuTal)  seed 
generally.''''  Neither  are  they  the  seed,  to  whom  the 
ancient  gospel  promises,  -which  you  assert  v.rere  not  in- 
eluded  in  that  covenant,  were  made ;  for  that  seed  is 
exclusively  Christ  in  person.  I  ask,  then.  Sir,  what  seed 
are  they?  If  those,  tvho  are  of  faitk,  are  not  the  seed, 
mentioned  in  the  covenant  of  the  Abrahamic  church,  nor 
the  seed  to  whom  the  promises,  which  you  hold  to  be 
independent  of  that  covenant,  were  made  ;  then,  what 
seed  are  thev,  and  how  are  thev  heirs  according  to  the 
promise  ?  To  this  questio^i,  Sir,  it  certainly  behoves  you 
to  give  a  clear,   and  scriptural  and  satisfactorv  answer. 

According  to  your  hypothesis,  there  are  ynany,  at  least 
as  many  as  three,  distinct  seeds,  to  whojn  promises  were 
made  ,  the  many,  "the  (natural)  seed  of  Abraham  gen- 
erally," mentioned  in  the  covenant,  sealed  with  circum- 
cision ;  the  one  seed,  to  whom  the  promises,  which  you 
assert  to  have  been  distinct  from  that  covenant,  were 
made  ;  and  the  seed^  xvho  are  heirs  according  to  the  pro- 
mise ! 


40  LETTER   VIII. 

Now  this,  Sir,  I  freely  confess,  is,  in  my  view,  di- 
rectly repugnant  to  the  scriptural  truth.  For  notwith- 
standing your  assertions  to  the  contrary,  I  do  believe, 
with  the  apostle,  that  to  Abraha?n  and  his  seed,  not  to 
SEEDS  as  (t/'many,  but  SEED  OS  ofosK  ;  nanxely,  Christ 
in  person,  and  all  true  believers,  as  one  in  him,  all  the 
promises  were  made,  and  solemnly  ratiiied  and  sealed, 
with  the  sign  of  circumcision.  And  if  so,  then  your  as- 
sumed distinction  between  two  supposed  covenants,  made 
with  Abraham,  is  totally  unscriptura!  and  unfounded. 

This,  Sir,  I  have  now  argued  at  great  length,  and  have 
not  failed,  I  trust,  vefy  amply  to  prove.  I  have  proved 
it  from  a  view  of  the  original  gospel  promise,  on  which 
the  church  of  God,  from  the  beginning  was  founded ; 
from  a  connected  viev/  of  God's  covenant  transactions 
with  Abraham  ;  from  a  view  of  the  comprehensive  pro- 
Kiisea,  expressly  mentioned  at  the  time  the  covenant 
with  Abraham  and  his  seed  was  sealed  with  the  sign  of 
circumcision  ;  and  by  direct  Nev/  Testament,  as  well  as 
Old  Testament,  testimony. 

All  your  attempts,  then,  to  provcy  that  I  had  "  mjista- 
ken  the  promise  in  my  text,"  turn  out  to  be  utterly  abor- 
tive ;  all  your  charges  against  me,  as  having  "  strangely 
blended  two  covenants,  which  are  entirely  distinct,  are 
totally  unfounded ;  all  your  desultory  reasonings,  conclu- 
sions, and  assertions,  grounded  on  your  assumed  dis- 
tinction, must  fall  to  the  ground ;  and  all  your  airs  of 
exultation,  as  if  you  had  completely  overthrown  my  doc- 
trine, only  serve  to  shew  how  much  easier,  in  some  in- 
stances, it  is  for  men  to  triumph^  tfian  to  achieve  a  vic- 
tory. 

I  am,  dear  Sir,  Sec. 


LETTER  VllL 
REV.  i^' DEAR  SIR, 

IN  my  preceding  Letters,  I  have  endeavored  to 
evince,  and,  I  trust,  have  not  failed  to  do  it  conclusively, 
that  the  great  and  precious  promises,  from  time  to  time 
made  and  renewed  to  Abraham,  were  nil  Included  in  the 


LETTER   VIII.  41 

gracious  and  comprehensive  covenant,  wKich  was  sol- 
emnly ratified,  and  sealed  with  the  sign  of  circumcision. 
Had  it  been  my  object  merely  to  dofend  my  "Two  Dis- 
courses" against  your  "Strictures,"  it  might  have  been 
sufficient  for  my  purpose  barely  to  have  asserted^  or  as- 
sumed^ that  there  xvere  not  two  distinct  covenants,  as  you 
have  been  pleased  to  assert^  or  assume  that  there  were. 
But  as  this  has  of  late  become  so  material  a  point  in  the 
present  controversy,  and  as  it  has  not,  to  my  knowledge, 
had  much  attention  bestowed  upon  it,  by  any  who 
have  written  on  this  general  subject;  it  appeared  to  me 
proper,  not  to  content  myself  with  merely  opposing  as- 
sertion to  assertion,  and  assumption  to  assumption,  but 
to  argue  to  the  point  at  considerable  length. 

Perhaps  I  have  been  too  prolix.  But  if,  in  the  course 
of  my  argument,  any  thing  has  been  done  towards  res- 
cuing the  ancient  covenant  and  church  of  God  from  that 
state  of  degradation,  into  which  you  and  your  brethren 
have  so  zealously  endeavored  to  sink  them ;  and  to  ex- 
pose the  futility  and  unscriptural  nature  of  the  antipgedo- 
baptist  objections  against  them  J  my  laborj  I  trust,  will 
not  be  considered  as  altogether  useless^ 

In  my  "  Two  Discourses,"  my  first  proposition  was» 
'•'•That  the  covenant,  xvhich  xvas  made  zvith  Abraham,  and 
by  zvhich  the  church  zvasjhrmedin  his  family  ^zuas  intended 
to  be  perpetual,  $r  to  continue  throughout  all  generations.'''* 

This  proposition  I  attempted  to  prove  by  arguments 
drawn  from  no  less  than  five  distinct  scriptural  topics. 
Of  this.  Sir,  yoii  were  careful  not  to  apprize  your  read- 
ers. Though  you  cite  the  proposition,  you  have  so  pru- 
dently avoided  taking  any  notice  of  the  arguments  by 
which  I  endeavoured  to  support  it,  that  from  your  book 
no  person,  I  think,  could  learn  what  anyoneof  them  was, 
or  whether,  indeed,  I  distinctly  offered  a  single  argument 
of  any  kind  ! — Whether  in  a  public  disputant  such  a  pro-* 
cedure  be  fair,  and  honourable,  I  cheerfully  leave.  Sir, 
for  you  and  a  candid  public  to  determine.  At  any  rate, 
it  was  probably  a  procedure,  which  saved  you  much 
trouble  ;  as  when  arguments  are  fair  and  invincible,  it 
is  certainly  easier  to  avoid  and  pass  b}''them,  than  fairly 
to  meet  and  remove  them  cuTOf  the  way. 

Bnt  careful  as  vou  have  been  to  avoid  a  direct  encoun- 
ter with  my  arguments  ;  yet  some  things,   of  a  nature 
hostile  to  them,  are  adventurcruslv  scattered  in  diiferent 
Let,  F 


42  LRTTER  VIII. 

parts  of  your  book.  These,  in  some  subsequent  Letters,  I 
shall  endeavour  to'coUect  andaiTange,  undertheir  proper 
heads,  and  m  such  a  manner  to  reply  to  them,  as  if  pos- 
sible, to  strengthen  the  general  proof  of  my  doctrine. 

But  at  this  stage  it  may  be  proper  to  pause,  for  the 
purpose  of  noting  riiore  particularly  an  important  point. 

Let  it  here,  theti,  be  specially  noted^  that  if  all  the  pre- 
cious promises,  made  to  Abraham,  were  included  in  the 
comprehensive  covenant,  bv  which  the  church  was  form- 
ed in  his  family  -^^  if,  in  particular  the  great  gospel  pro- 
mise, /'I  thee  and  in  thy  secd^  shall  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  be  blessed^  was  included  in  that  covenant ;  then,  of 
necessary  consequence,  your  antipsedobaptist  theory 
must  eventually  fall. 

This  great  promise,  it  is  acknowledged  on  all  hand?, 
comprised  the  Messiah  and  all  the  blessings  of  his  king- 
dom. It  was,  in  fact,  as  before  observed,  the  gospel  or 
Christ,  as  summarily  revealed  at  that  important  era 
of  the  church  ;  as  the  assurance  given  in  Paradise,  that 
the  seed  of  the  woynan  shoiddbruise  the  serpent'^s  head^\fZ9 
the  first  revelation  of  the  same  glorious  gospel. 

But  you  and  your  brethren  have  assumed^  that  this 
promise  was  720?  included  in  the  covenant  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  church  j  and  upon  this  assumptio7i^  your  principal 
arguments  and  objections  against  us  are  founded  ;  nay 
upon  this  asssiimption,  your  whole  antepsedobaptist  theo- 
ry principally  depends  for  its  support. 

If  the  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  which 
was  solemnly  sealed  with  the  sign  of  circumcision,  did 
include  THE  GOSPEL  PROMISE  ;  and  if,  upon  this  pro- 
mise, the  church  of  God  under  the  Abrahamic  dispen- 
sation, as  from  the  beginning  it  had  been,  was  founded  ; 
then  unquestionably  that  covenant  and  that  church  were 
essentially  the  sa7}ie  covenant  and  church,  which  com- 
menced with  the  first  believing  pair  in  Paradise,  which 
from  that  early  period  have  been  continued,  under  differ- 
ent dispensations,  to  the  present  time,- — and  which  will 
be  continued  to  the  latest  ages.  This,  Sir,  you  yourself, 
throughout  your  book,  and  your  brethren  generally,  who 
have  written  on  the  subje^have,  in  effect,  acknowledged. 

Suffer  me,  then,  to  repeat  it ;  if  the  covenant  with  A- 
braham  and  his  seed  did  include  the  gospel  promise  ; 
then  youv  whole  antipsedopabtist  theory  must  eventually 
fall. 


LETTER    IX.  43 

Here,  then,  I  might  stop  ;  for,  as  I  have  proved  at 
large,  that  the  gospel  promise  was  included  in  the  one 
comprehensive  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed  ; 
the  great  doctrine  of  my  "  Two  Discourses"  must  rest 
on  a  firm  and  immoveable  foundation. 

But  as  it  may  be  of  some  use  to  shew,  not  only  in  the 
general,  that  your  theory  has  no  solid  foundation,  but 
■also  in  detail,  that  your  arguments  and  objections  against 
us  are  intirely  unavailing  ;  I  shall  take  leave  to  pursue 
the  subject.  And  if,  in  my  subsequent  Letters,  there 
should  be  the  appearance  of  repetition,  as  I  am  aware 
there  will  be  ;  I  hope  for  indulgence  ;  as  apparent  rep- 
etitions must  necessarily  result  from  attending  to  the 
same  argumtnts  and  objections,  presented  in  different 
attitudes  and  shapes ;  and  especially,  as  it  will  be  my 
aim  to  make  things  as  plain  as  I  can  to  every  understand- 
ing. 

Your's,  dear  Sir,  &c. 


LETTER  IX. 
RE  V.  £5"  DEAR  SIR, 

I  NOW  proceed,  as  in  my  last  Letter  I  proposed, ' 
to  a  consideration  of  those  things,  in  different  parts  of 
vour  book,  which  more  directly  militate,  with  the  sever- 
al arguments,  by  which  the  doctrine  of  my  "Two  Dis- 
courses'  was  attempted  to  be  proved.. 

"  1.  By  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  he  was  consti- 
tuted  the  father  of  all  theiyi  that  believe.'''' 

This  was  the  first  head  ol  argument  by  which  I  attemp- 
ted to  prove  the  perpetuitv  of  the  covenant.  A  single 
paragraph  in  xht  illustration  of  this  argument,  you  have 
condescended  to  notice  ;  and  to  notice,  too,  in  such  a 
Planner,  as  induces  me  to  conclude,  that  this  was  one  of 
the  points,  which  you  intended,  according  to  your  honest 
declaration,  '■'■so  to  touch  as  to  be  feit.^'' — The  piragraph 
is  the  following. 

"  But  Abraham  was  the  father  of  many  natiois  ;  and  all 
who  are  of  faith  are  his  children,  and  are  blejsed   with 


44  LETTER    IX. 

him.  This  is  according  to  the  covenant  of  pi-omisc,  which 
God  made  with  Abraham.  He  received  the  sign  of  circum- 
cision^ a  seal  of  the  righteousness  offaith^  that  he  might 

BE  THE  FATHER  OF  ALL  THEM  THAT  BELIEVE,  THOUGH 

THEY  BE  NOT  CIRCUMCISED,  though  they  be  not  his  nat- 
ural posterity,  THAT  RIGHTEOUSNESS  MIGHT  BE  IMPU- 
TED TO  THEM  ALSO." 

With  reference  to  this  passage,  you  very  complacently 
*'charge"  me,  1.  "With  misquoting  the  apostle's  words ;" 
2.  "With  misapplying  them."  and  3.  "With  making  him 
give  a  very  important  conclusion  without  any  premises."* 
To  these  charges,  Sir,  I  am  prepared  to  reply. 

1.  That  in  quoting  Rom.  iv.  11,  I  omitted,  in  this  in- 
stance, some  words,  I  readily  acknowledge.  The  text 
had  just  before  been  quoted  entire  ;  and  I  did  believe, 
and  do  still  believe,  that  the  omission,  in  this  contested 
quotation,  did  no  injury  to  the  sense  of  the  apostle. 

The  clause.  And  he  received  the  sign  of  circumcision^  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith^  which  he  had^  being 
yet  iincircwncised,  obviously  contains  two  distinct  ideas  ; 

Jirst^  that  circumcision  was  given  to  Abraham,  as  a  seal 
of  the  righteousness  of  faith  ;  and,  secondly^  that  Abra- 
ham was  the  subject  of  faith,  before  he  was  circumcised. 
As  this  last  idea,  though  no  wise  inauspicious  to  my  ar- 
gument, was  thought  to  be  not  material  to  it ;  the  words 
containing  it  were  omitted,  and  only  the  first  idea  was 
distinctly  retained.     To    any  censure,  which  a  candid 

•  public  may  think  proper  to  pass  on  me,  for  such  an  omis- 
sion, I  will  submissively  bow. 

However,  as  upon  further  consideration, itappears  to  me, 
that  the  last  idea  will  give  additional  strength  to  my  arr 
gument,  in  my  second  edition  I  have  given  the  text  entire. 
This,  tcgethee  with  the  remarks,  which  I  have  already 
made,  and  which  I  have  yet  to  make,  upon  the  text,  in 
these  Letters,  will  be  sufficient,  I  hope,  to  atone,  even 
v/ith  you,  for  my  former  omissions. 

2.  You  "charge"  me  with  misapplying  the  apostles 
■  words. 

"  Circumcision,"  you  say,  "was  a  seal  to  Abraham  of 
his  faith  ;  but  it  is  not  said  to  be  such  to  his  posterity,  or 
to  any  other  person  upon  earth."  (True!)  "Mr.  Wor- 
cester has  made  it  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith 
generall;."     This  is  my  misapplication. 

*  Appendix,  p.  273. 


LETTER    IX.  45 

By  wkat  authority  you  undertake  to  say  that  cir- 
cumcision was  a  seal  to  Abraham  of  his  faitti^  you  have 
not  been  so  good  as  to  inform  us  ;  neither  have  you 
been  careful  to  explain  to  us,  what  is  to  be  understood 
by  a  seal  to  Abraham  of  his  faith. 

Arc  not  faith,  Sir,  and  the  righteousness  of  faith^ 
entirely  distinct  things  ?  Is  not  the  righteousnes  of  faith, 
of  which  the  apostle  repeatedly  speaks,  that  righteous- 
ness, by  which  believers  are  graciously  justified  ?  But 
what  is  that  righteousness  which  is  imputed  to  believers, 
for  their  justification  ?  Is  it  not  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  which,  by  faith,  is  apprehended,  as  the  only 
ground  of  acceptance  with  God  ?  Faith,  then,  is  one 
thing ;  and  the  righteousness  of  faith  is  another. 

Be  pleased  to  observe,  Sir,  the  apostle  does  not  say, 
that  circumcision  was  to  Ahr^^ham  a.  seal  of  his  faith  ; 
but  he  says,  that  Abraham  received  it,  a  seal  of  the  righ- 
teousness of  faith — of  the  faith  which  he  had,  yet  being 
U7icircwnczsed. 

Suffer  me,  then,  to  ask  ;  was  not  Abraham's  faith,  es- 
sentially, the  same  with  the  faith  of  every  true  believer? 
Was  not  the  righteousness  of  the  faith,  xvhich  Abra- 
ham had,  the  very  same,  which  ever  has  been,  and  ever 
will  he,  the  rightt-ovshess  of  the  faith  of  every  true 
believer.  But  if  the  righteousness  of  faith  be  the 
same  to  all  true  believers  j  then  was  not  the  seal,  which 
Abraham  received,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith 
generally  ?  Was  it  not  the  same  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob, 
and  to  every  believing  Israelite,  that  it  was  to  Abra- 
ham? 

V/here,  then,  is  the  ground  for  your  charge  against 
me  of  misapplying  the  apostle's  words  ? 

It  is,  however,  of  but  little  consequence,  in  vchat  man- 
ner you  treat  me  ;  it  is  of  vastly  greater  consequence, 
how  you  treat  the  apostle. 

The  apostle.  Sir,  expressly  says,  that  circumcision 
was  a  si'rt/,  not  oi  failh,h\xx.  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith  ;  you  say,  it  was  a  seal  of  faith.  The  apostle  says,  it 
was  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  ofthejaiihwhich  Abra- 
ham  had,  being  yet  imcircumcised,  v/hich,  undoubtedly,  is 
the  righteousness  of  the  faith  of  all  true  believers  ; 
you  say,  it  was  only  a  seal  to  Abraham  of  his  faith,  as 
if  his  faith  was  something  entirely  difierent  from  that 
,of  all  others  I 


^6  XETTEH  rx. 

I  cannot  but  think,  Sir,  that  in  cases,  likp  this,  in 
which  you  think  proper  to  differ  so  widely  from  the 
apostle,  it  would  not  derogate  from  your  dignity,  as  a 
public  disputant,  to  offer  some  proof,  other  than  your 
bare  assertion,  in  support  of  your  opinion.— Besides,  if 
circumcision  were  only  a  seal  to  Abraham  of  his  faith  ; 
why  was  it  applied  to  Isaac  and  to  Jacob,  and  to  the  Is- 
raelites generally  ? 

Your  questions,  respecting  the  "faith  of  an  infant,*' 
and  of  "a  sen^ant  bought  witli  money,"  I  must  leave,  for 
the  present,  between  you  and  the  great  Author  both  of 
faith  itself,  and  of  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith. 
In  the  propriety  and  wisdom  of  his  icstitutions,  I  trust 
I  may  safely  confide. 

3.  "In  order  to  render  it  plain  to  every  capacity,  that 
Mr.  Worcester  has  made  the  apostle  conclude  -without 
f  remises^  we  will  again,"  you  say,  "set  do\vii  his  quota- 
tion. He  received  the  sign  of  circumcision^  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  offaith^  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all 
them  that  believe^  though  they  be  not  circumcised.  The 
apostle,^'  you  observe,  "is  here  made  to  say,  that  Abra- 
ham was  circumcised,  so  that  he  might  be  the  father  of 
ielievers  that  are  uncircumcised.^'' 

No,  Sir ;  the  apostle  is  -made  to  say,  that  Abraham 
received  the  sign  of  circumcision^  a  seal  of  the  right^ovs^ 
VESS  offaith^  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that 
believe^  though  they -be  not  circumcised ;  that  is,  whether 
they  be  circumcised,  or  not.  Is  he,  then,  made  to  say 
any  thing.  Sir,  which  he  does  not  say  ? 

But  in  3^our  usual  manner  you  are  pleased  to  proceed : 
*'We  ask,  i^i  the  name  of  common  sense^  why  it  was  ne- 
cessary- for  Abraham  to  be  circumcised,  in  order  tO  con- 
stitute him,  the  father  of  believers  that  are  uncircum- 
cised  ?" 

In  my  turn,  I  take  leave  to  ask  you.  Sir,  with  great 
seriousness  ;  would  it  not  be  perfectly  in  character  for  a 
deist  to  ask,  hi  the  name  of  covimo?i  sense^  "why  it  was 
necessary,"  that  Adam  should  abstain  from  eating  of  the 
tree  of  the  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  in  order  to  con- 
stitute him  the  head  of  a  holy  race  ?-^"Why  it  was  ne- 
cessary for  Abraham  to  be  circumcised,  in  order  to  con- 
stitute him  the  father  of  them  that  believe  ?"— "Why  it 
was  necessary"  for  Aaron  to  be  washed,  and  anointed 
with  the  holy  anointing  oil,  in  order  to  constitute  him  the 


LETTEPw    IX.  47 

high-priest  of  the  church  ? — and  questions  of  this  sort 
without  number  ? 

Nothing  is  farther  from  my  heart,  than  to  cast  upon 
you  anv  unfavorable  imputation.  But  really,  Sir,  I  ear- 
nestly wish  you  to  cojislder,  whether  you,  and  your 
brethren,  when  contending  with  us,  with  respect  to  the 
ancient  institutions  of  God,  do  not  often  adventure  upon 
deistical  ground,  and  insensibly  display  a  spirit,  but  lit- 
tle becoming  the  believers  in  revelation. 

The  point  here  in  dispute  is  precisely  this  ;  whether 
it  were  Abraham's yai^/z,  which  constituted  him  the  fa- 
ther of  them  that  believe  ;  or  whether  he  were  thus  con- 
stituted, by  the  special  ordination  of  God^  when  he  re- 
ceived the  sacred  seal  of  circumcision.  You  hold  the 
former  position  ;  I  hold  the  latter. 

"In  order  to  see  the  force  of  the  apostle's  reasoning, 
the  following  words,"  ysu  say,  "which  begins  the  quota- 
tion, ought  to  be  considered  as  a  parenthesis,  as  they 
really  are,  viz.  C And  he  received  the  sign  of  circurnci.siony 
a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith^  xvhich  he  had^  yet 
being  uncir€U7ncised.J  The  apostle,"^  you  add,  "states 
his  argument  thus  :  For  we  say  that  faith  was  reckoned 
to  Abraham  for  righteousness.  Hoxv  was  i%  then  reckon- 
edf  When  he  was  in  circumcision^  or  in  uncircwticisicn  ^ 
Not  in  ciraimcision,  but  in  uncircumcision^  (and  he  re- 
ceived the  sign,  &c.)  that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all 
them  that  believe^  though  they  be  not  circumcised.'"  p.  276. 
To  me  Sir,  I  confess,  it  would  have  been  some  satis- 
faction to  have  been  informed,  by  what  authority  you 
dispense  \f\iih.  periods^  and  msert  parentheses^  at  your 
pleasure,  in  the  sacred  text  j  for  notwithstanding  the  as- 
surance, with  which  you  do  it,  I  cannot  but  consider  it  ta 
be  using  a  liberty  of  at  least  a  very  questionable  nature. 
In  this  way,  imdoubtedly,  the  scriptures  might  be  so-wi-es- 
ted,  as  apparently  to  lend  support  to  any  favorite  senti- 
ment, which  wc  might  choese  to  adapt. — ^Your  reference, 
to    Gal.  iii.  13,  14,  is  totally  irrelevant. 

In  order  to  make  out  your  charge  against  me,  of  hav- 
ing "made  the  apostle  conclude  xvithout  premises j'"*  and  to 
support  your  favorite  sentiment ;  you  so  manage  the  text, 
as  entirely  to  alter  the  connection,  and  in  a  manner  to 
suppress  the  "premises,"  from  which  he  does  "conclude.'* 
Was  it.  Sir,  to  have  been  expected,  that,  at  the  very  mo- 
ment when  you  were  "charging"  me  with   "mutilating'* 


48  LETTER    IX- 

this  text,  you  would  yourself  have  used,  whh  respect  to' 
i,t,  so  extraordinary  a  licence. 

Will  you  suffer  me,  Sir,  in  your  own  words  to  ask,  "is 
it  possible  that  the  appostle  should  reason  at  this  rate." 
Docs  he  say  that  it  was  by  "  faith  being  reckoned  to  A- 
braham  for  righteousness,  when  he  was  uncircumcised," 
that  he  was  constituted  the  father  of"  believers  ?  "He 
certainly  does  not." 

Was  not  Abel,  Sir,  a  true  believer  ?  Was  not  Enoch 
a  true  believer  ?  Was  not  Noah  a  true  believer  ?  And 
was  not  faith  reckoned  to  each  of  themybr  righteousness, 
in  the  same  sense  that  it  was  to  Abraham,  while  in  un- 
circumcision  ?  But  was  either  of  them  constituted,  in 
the  same  sense  that  Abraham  was,  the  father  of  thetn 
that  Relieve  P — This  will  not  be  pretended. 

No,  Sir,  it  was  not  by  Abraham's  "faith  reckoned  to 
him  for  righteousness,  v/hile  uncircumcised  ;"  but  it  was 
by  the  special  ordination  of  God,  when,  for  this  purpose, 
ke  received  the  sign  of  circumcision^  that  he  was  consti- 
tuted the  father  of  believei-s. 

Before  the  call  of  Abraham,  as  I  have  before  had  oc- 
casion to  observe,  the  church  of  God  had  only  been  in 
the  family  state,  without  any  explicit  administration,  or 
special  seal  of  the  gracious  covenant.  The  patriarch  of 
a  famih',  was  also  the  patriarch  of  that  part  or  branch  of 
the  church,  which  the"members  of  his  family  composed. 
But  for  wise  and  important  purposes  the  Lord  saw  fit 
to  reduce  his  church  to  a  more  regularly  organized 
body ;  favored  with  a  clearer  dispensation  of  his  cove- 
nant, and  distinguished  by  a  special  and  visible  seal. 
Accordingly  Abraham,  whom  infinite  Avisdom  had  se- 
lected for  this  purpose,  was  called  away  from  his  coun- 
try and  hi«  kindred,  that  in  his  family  the  church  might 
be  regularly  formed  ;  and  that  in  him,  as  the  heir  of 
the  worlds  and  the  appointed  father  of  the  whole  body 
of  believers,  to  the  end  of  time,  all  the  families  of  the 
earth  might  be  blessed. 

After  due  trial  and  preparation  for  the  high  transaction, 
the  Lord  appeared  to  Abraha?n,w\th  ineffable  glory,solemn' 
ly  to  establish  his  covenant  with  him  and  his  seed  forever. 
By  the  saci'ed  rite  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righte- 
ousness o/yaifA,  and,  therefore,  a  seal  of  all  the  bles- 
sings of  eternal  redemption,  Abraham  was  formally  con- 
stituted the  father  of  believers  of  all  nations  throughout  all 


LETTER   X.  49 

Succeeding  ages  ;  that  righteousness ^xh.t  same  righteous- 
ness o/yaii"/;,  by  which  he  was  justified,  might  also  be 
imputed  to  them. 

This  account  of  the  matter,  I  conceive  to  be  perfectly- 
scriptural.  It  is  agreeable  to  the  scriptural  view,  given 
of  the  general  subject  in  my  "Two  Discourses,"  and  in 
the  preceding  Letters  ;  it  is  agreeable  to  the  plain  tenor 
of  the  apostle's  argument  in  the  fourth  of  Romans  now 
particularly  in  question  ;  and  nothing  which  you  have 
offered  in  any  part  of  your  book  can  avail  to  set  it  aside. 

My  first  argument,  then,  still  remains  unshaken  j  and 
14:  is,  of  itself,  sufHcient,  as  I  conceive,  conclusively  to 
prove  the  perpetuity  of  this  covenant. 

Standing,  Sir,  upon  this  strong  ground,  your  promise: 
of  "  retracting  your  charges,"  I  will  not  call  upon  you  to 
fulfil ;  your  numerous  implications  of  censure  and  re- 
jjroach  I  will  neither  retort  nor  answer  ;  your  airs  and 
expressions  of  triumph  I  will  not  adopt ;  but  I  v/ill  cheer- 
fully resign  myself  to  the  judgment  of  a  candid  christian 
public,  and  leave  my  cause  with  the  God  of  truth; 
I  remain,  Sir,  Stc. 


LETTER  X« 

RE  V.  cy  DEAR  SIR, 

THE  next  head  of  argument  by  which,  in  my 
"  Two  Discourses,"  I  attempted  to  prove  the  perpetuity 
of  the  covenant,  was  as  follows  : 

"2.  God's  covenant  of  promise,  made  with  Abraham, 
comprised  all  the  blessings  and  privileges,  ever  promised 
to  belivers  and  t@  the  church." 

Had  you  succeeded.  Sir,  in  your  attempt  to  shew,  that 
the  great  Gospel  promise,  first  mads  to  Abraham  at 
the  time  of  his  call,  was  not  included  in  the  covenant  of 
the  present  church,  this  argument  would  have  been  im- 
paired. But  by  the  proof  which  I  have  offered,  that  this 
promise  was  contained  in  the  covenant,  this  argument  is 
established,  I  believe,  upon  a  firmly  consolidated  basis. 
Even  you  yourself  acknowledge,  that  "  this  prsmise 
Let.  G 


50  LlETTER   X. 

comprises  every  thing,  because  It  comprises  the'  Messi- 
ah, the  Seed  in  whom  some  of  all  nations  shall  be  bless- 
ed."    p.  173. 

•  In  the  second  Section  of  your  Appendix,  I  notice  a 
passage,  on  which  it  mav  be  of  use  to  bestow  some  at- 
tention ;  and  for  whrch  I  may  not  perhaps  find  a  more 
proper  place  than  this.  I  refer  to  the  passage,  in  which 
you  undertake  to  enumerate  and  distinguish  the  several 
articles  of  the  covenant.  Taking  the  articles  as  you 
have  given  them,  I  v.iil  offer  a  counterpart,  to  yOur  ex- 
planation, and  submit  it  for  consideration. 

•"  Art.  I.  /  ivill  make  ?ni/  covenant  between  7ne  and  thee^ 

AND  -WILL  MULTIPLY  THEE  EXCEEDINGLY,  GcTl.  Xvii.  2." 

That  the  spiritual^  as  well  as  natural,  seed  of  Abra- 
ham will  ultimately  be  as  the  stars  cvf  heaven  for  multi- 
tude, we  have  the  highest  certainty  :  For  this  is  one  c^f  the 
promises  expressly  mentioned,  when,  on  occasion  of  the 
oblation  of  Isaac,  the  Lord  confirmed  his  covenant  with 
the  awful  solemnity  of  an  oath  ;  and  this  very  pro7nise  is 
particularly  quoted  by  the  Apostle,  in  the  sixth  of  He- 
brews, as  a  promise,  which  especially  looked  forward  to 
gospel  times,  and  the  conjirmation  of  which,  by  an  oath, 
was  intended  to  afford  sfro/.g  consolation  to  all^  ivho  have 
ficdfor  refuge^  to  latj  hold  on  the  hope  set  before  us. 

Yet  you  are  pleased,  Sir,  to  assert  that  "  the  promi- 
sorv  part  of  this  article  respected  the  ^ja^z^ra/ offspring  of 
Abraham,  and  nothing  more  /" 

"  Art.  II.  Behold  mij  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou 

SHALT  BE  A  FATHER  OF  MANY  NATIONS,  Ver,   5" 

"  This  part  of  the  covenant"  is  certainly  to  be  taken  in 
a  spiritual  as  well  as  natural  sense :  For,  as  I  have  be- 
fore she\vn  at  large,  the  apostle,  in  the  fourth  of  Romans, 
expressly  applies  it  "  to  the  church  of  Christ,"- — to  A- 
brahams  spiritual  seed,  even  all  the  nations  of  the  re- 

DEEMtD. 

But,  unhappily,  in  this  instance  again,  the  authoritv  of 
the  apostle  appears  to  have  with  you  but  little  weiglut ; 
for  you  undertake  to  say,  that  "there  is  nothing  in  j;hls 
article,  which  points  us  directly  to  the  church  of  Christ." 
"  Art.  III.  And  Kings  shall  come  of  thee,  ver.  6, ." 
If  this  promise  had  a  literal  respect  to  the  "  natural 
offspring  of  the  patriarch,"  it  had  also,  unquestionably,  a 
typical  respect  to  his  spiritual  seed :  For  as,  in  the  nine- 
teenth of  Exodus,  God  promised  Israel,  that  they  should 


LETTER   X. 


si 


be  unto  him  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  a  holy  nation  ;  so 
in  the  new  testament,  those  who  by  faith  ^  are  children  of 
Abraham^  and  heirs  according  to  promise^  are  called  a 
ROYAL  PRIESTHOOD,  an  holy  nation^  and  are  said  to  be 
made  kings  and  priests  unto  God. 

But  "  this"  promise,  you  ear,  respected  not  the  church 
of  God,  as  such,  under  any  dispensation." 

"Art.  IV.  I xvill  establish  my  covenant  between  we,  and 
thee^  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in  their  generations^  for  an 

EVERLASTING  COVENANT,  TO  BE  A  GOD  UNTO  THEE,  AND 
TO  THY  SEED  AFTER  THEE.  AnD  I  WILL  GIVE  UNTO 
THEE  AND  TO  THY  SEED  AFTER  THEE,  THE  LAND  WHERE- 
IN THOU  ART  A  STRANGER,  ALL  THE  LAND  OF  CaNAAN 
FOR  AN  EVERLASTING  POSSESSION  ;    AND  I  WILL  BE  THEIR 

God,  ver.  7,  8."      * 

In  the  preceding  "Articles,"  the  divinely  constituted 
heir  of  the  worlds  and  father  of  many  nations^  was  prom- 
ised a  numerous  and  excellent  seeclj  a  seed,  as  the  stars 
of  heaven^  and  as  the  sand  upon  the  sea  shore^  in  number, 
and  as  kings  and  priests  unto  God^  in  dignity  and  glo- 
ry. In  this  fourth  Article,  t®  the  favoured  patriarch  and 
his  seed,  the  all-sufficient  jehovah  engages  to  he  a 
God!  This  is  undoubtedly  the -comprehension  of  all 
blessings. 

I  xvill  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people,  is 
the  sum  of  what  is  promised,  in  the  renewal  of  the  cove- 
nant under  the  present  dispensation. 

But  as  an  appendage,  or  part,  of  Gods  gracious  cove- 
nant, the  land  of  Canaan  was  annexed  ;  for  godliness  is 
prof  table  unto  all  things,  havijig  promise  of  the  life.xvhich 
noxv  is,  a?id  that  xuhich  is  to  come. 

By  a  special  divine  grant,  the  land  of  Canaan  was  given 
to  Abiaham  and  his  seed.  It  was  given,  as  a  temporal 
mheritandfe,  to  a  part  of  his  seedj  it  was  given,  for  im- 
portant purposes,  to  the  church  at  large,  and  the  benefits 
ol  the  grant  are  still  enjoyed,  by  believers  of  all  nations, 
and  witl  be  enjoyed  in  all  succeeding  ages  ;  and  it  was 
given  as  a  sure  pledge  and  earnest  of  that  glorious  in- 
heritance, xuhich  is  incorruptable,  xvhich  is  undefiled,  and 
■which  fideth  not  axvay,  reserved  in  heaven  for  them.^ 

*  It  is  particularly  observable,  that  not  only  %«-d  Canaar.  .jf- 

fore  been  promised,  but  thp  gr&nt  had  been  furmull/  iMtinedatid 

'"o-afirmcd,  in  the  ancient  manner  of  contracts  between  man  and 

passiiig  betAVccn  the  parts  of  animals,  slain  for  ihat  pur  - 

-lis  grant,  tfrerelore,  instead  of  being  a  priiicipal  part 


S^  LETTER    X. 

The  capital  promise,  in  this  fourth  Article,  Sir,  not- 
notwithstanding  you  were  pleased  to  connect  with  it  the 
promise  of  Canaan,  evidently  appears  to  have  embarrass 
sed  you  exceedingly ;  and  you  seem  to  have  perceived 
no  other  way  of  relief,  than  adroitly  to  turn  the  attention 
of  your  readers,  from  your  own  embarrassment,  to  the 
difficulties,  in  which  you  attempt  to  involve  others.  Your 
mazy  "  questions"  and  "  consequences,"  following,  in 
this  connexion,  may  have  some  attention  in  another  place. 
But  I  will  here.  Sir,  freely  acknowledge,  and  I  would 
make  the  acknowledgement  with  seriousness  and  gratir 
tude,  that  after  all  your  attempts  to  darken  and  diminish 
a  subject,  as  clear  as  it  is  glorious,  and  to  cast  reproach 
upon  the  believers  in  this  everlasting  covenant ;  I  am 
"one"  of  those,  who  believe  that  the  great  promise,  now 
in  view,  contains  "  every  thing,  that  a  God  of  mercy  can 
bestow  upon  fallen  creatures  for  time  and  for  eternity  !" 

Will  you  now,  dear  Sir,  as  a  professed  child  cf  jihrar 
ham^  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus^  seriously  compare  the  acr 
count  here  given  of  the  covenant,  with  your  own,  with 
which  it  is  placed  in  contrast ;  then  compare  both  the 
one  and  the  other  with  the  scriptures  in  their  connexion  j 
and  then  say,  which  is  the  more  correct,  w^hich  the  more 
scriptural,  which  the  more  spiritual  and  solid,  and  which 
the  more  worthy  of  the  all  sufficient  God. 

In  your  account  of  this  gracious  covenant,  have  you 
not  contented  yourself  with  the  mere  outward  integu- 
ment or  shell,  while  the  more  precious  and  excellent  part, 
you  have  entirely  thrown  away? — rYou  have  made  it 
throughout  a  temporal  affair  ;  and  all  the  great  and  in- 
estimable blessings,  which  in  the  IVIessiah  it  contained 
for  his  church  and  people,  in  a  better  life  and  world,  you 
have  labored  abundantly  to  keep  out  of  sight. 

In  the  same  temjtxjrfl/ light,  the  carnal  pa:t  <#the  Jew- 
ish nation  and  church  appear  to  have  considered  the  pre- 
cious prom.ises  of  the  covenant.  But  was  it  thus  with 
the  true  heirs  of  the  promises  P  No,  Sir ;  but  they  con- 
Jessed,  that  they  were  strangers  and piigr'ans  on  the  earthy 
and  they  desired  a  better  country,  that  is  ^  an  he  avev- 
j,Y.  Wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  called  their 
God;  for  he  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city. 

I  am,  dear  Sir,  &c. 

of  the  covenant,  of  which  circumcision  was  a  seal,  Avas  evidently 
no  more  than  a  mere  appendage,  or  codicil. 


53 
LETTER  XI. 

REV.i!f  DEAR  SIR, 

MY  next  head  of  argument  was  expressed  in  the  fol- 
lowing terms  : 

"  3.  The  covenant,  made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed^ 
is  the  csvenant  of  which,  in  the  new  testament,  Christ  is 
said  to  be  the  3Iediator,  and  ruhich  is  designated  as  the  co^ 
vcnant  to  be  established  with  the  church,  in  the  days  of  the 
gospel. 

With  respect  to  this  argument  there  is  one  paragraph 
in  your  "  Strictures,"  which  requires  some  attention. 

"  But  after  all  his  ingenious  labor  to  prove  his  point,'* 
YOU  are  pleased  to  say,  "  he  has  failed  ;"  (Of  this.  Sir,  the 
public  will  judge,)  "  and  in  the  very  next  page,  with  much 
seeming  reluctance  conceded  to  an  important  difference, 
between  tlie  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and 
the  covenent  with  the  church  under  the  present  dispen- 
sation." No,  Sir,  I  have  conceded  to  no  difference.  But 
you  proceed :  "  Speaking  of  the  new  covenant,  he  says, 
'  In  the  last  instance,  there  is  an  intimation  of  a  renewal 
of  heart,  in  those  with  whom  the  covenant  is  established.* 
An  intimation.  Sir,"  you  exclaim  ;  is  this  all  ?  Is  there 
not  a  positive  solemn  engagement  ?* — rAn  intimation  of 
a  renewal  of  heart !  We  could  not  have  believed,  had  we 
not  seen  it  from  his  own  pen,  that  the  pastor  of  The  Ta- 
bernacle Church  in  Salem,  could  ever  have  spoken  with 
such  cold  indifference  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
renewing  the  heart  !"  P.  287. 

In  reply  to  this  extraordinary  paragraph,  I  takfe  leave 
to  present,  at  large,  the  passage  of  my  Discourses,  to 
which  you  here  refer. 

*'  In  the  last  instance  indeed,"  that  is,  of  the  statement 

*  /  nvill  put  my  la%v  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in 
thtir  hearta. — This  I  call  "an  intimation  of  a  renewal  of 
HEART."  But  perhaps  I  do  not  rightly  understand  the  mean» 
ing  of  the  word  ! 

I  say,  also,  that  "a  rcnpval  of  heart"  v/as  intimated,  by  th« 
ancient  sign  of  circumcision ;  the  covenant  import  of  which  is 
thus  expressed;  The  Lord  thy  God  will  circumcise  thine 
HEART,  a^ld  the  heart  o/" thy  seed  to  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thine  heart  and  with  all  thy  soul, 
THAT  THOU  MAYESTLivE. — ,VVhat  "  intimation,"  Or  "  enga gc- 
pient,"  is  there  in  thp  one  case,  different  from  v/hat  there  is  in 
th^  other  r 


54  LETTER    XI. 

of  the  covenant,"  there  is  an  intimation  of  a  renewal  of, 
heart,  in  those,  with  whom  the  covenant  is  established. 
The  same  also  was  intimated,  at  the  first  estit^:>lishment 
of  the  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  by  the  sign 
of  circumcision,  which  was  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith ^  and  a  sacrament  significant  of  a  renovation  of 
heart,  or  a  neiv  creature.  For  the  promise  that  he  should 
be  the  heir  of  the  worlds  was  not  to  Abraham  or  to  hisseed^ 
through  the  laxv^  but  through  the  righteousness  of  faith* 
Accordingly  in  the  Old  Testament,  a  renoveiiion  of  hearty 
or  inward  conformity  to  the  law  of  God,  is  abundantly  in- 
culcated ;  and  the  promise  of  the  Spirit  to  God's  cove- 
nant people  for,  this  purpose^  is  often  repeated.  And  in 
the  New  Testament,  we  are  taught  that  the  promise,  of 
the  Spirit  was  included  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham, 
or  in  that  blessing  of  Abraham,  which  comes  upon  the 
Gentiles  through  Jesus  Christ." 

The  public.  Sir,  will  now  judge  of  the  "  cold  indiffer- 
ence, with  which  the  Pastor  of  the  Tabernacle  Churcl*  in 
Salem  speaks  of  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  renew- 
ing the  heart ;  and  the  candour  and  fairness,  with  which 
the  Pastor  of  the  Second  Baptist  Church  in  Boston  writes 
his  Strictures  ! — ^I  forbear  to  make  any  comment ;  and 
merel}'  remark,  that  this  is  not  the  only  instance,  in  which 
you  have  thought  proper  to  treat  me  in  this,  or  a  similar 
manner. 

My  third  argument  however,  still  remains  unimpaired, 
and  by  what  I  have  offered  in  the  preceding  Letters  is 
more  firmly  established. — Those  parts  of  your  book, 
which  more  directly  militate  with  my  fourth  head  of  ar- 
gument, I  reserve  for  subsequent  consideration. 

*'5.  The  covenant,  made  with  Abraham,  is  expressly 
declared  to  be  an  everlastirtg,  or  perpetual,  covenant ;  a 
covenant  to  continue  to  the  latest  generations." 

In  your  "  Strictures"  on  my  Discourses,  you  have  no- 
thing, as  I  recollect,  directly  touching  this  J?/>/i  argument ; 
but  in  the  second  Section  of  your  Appendix,  vou  have 
a  note,  which  ought  not  to  pass  witiiout  some  attention. 
"The  word  everlasting^^  you  say,  "has  a  threefold  ap- 
plication, as  connected  with  this  covenant.  The  first  is 
general.  It  is  called  an  everlasting  covenant.  The  pos- 
session of  the  promised  land,  an  everlasting-  possession. 
The  mark,  left  upon  the  subjects  of  this  bloody  rite  is 
thus  expressed;  My  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh',  for 


LETTER    XI.  35- 

in  everlas't'ing  coveyiant.  Our  brethren  very  tenaciousiy 
retain  the  fii  st  of  these,  but  have  no  difficuky  in  dispens- 
ing witli  the  two  last.  ">  To  us  they  appear  so  entirely 
connected,  that  we  are  led  to  consider  them  all  of  the 
same  import.  Yea,  it  appears  to  us  that  the  two  latter 
nre  encgetical  of  the  former.  At  leasts  no  part  of  the 
covenant  can,  by  fair  construction,  be  carried  to  a  greater 
extent  of  time,  than  the  mark  of  circmnci&iQn  in  the  fleshy 
and  the  possession  of  the  land  of  Canaari^bo'th  of -which  are 
^aid  to  be  everlasting.''''     P.  174. 

-This  note,  if  it  means  any  thing,  undoubtedly  means, 
that  the  whole  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  if 
not  merely  te^nporal^  as  opposed  to  spiritual,  was  at  least 
temporary,  as  opposed  to  eternal:  for  whether  any  spir- 
itual blessings  were  contained  in  it,  or  not,  "no  part  of 
the  covenant  can  bv  fair  construction,"  you  sav,  "be  ca|*- 
ried  to  a  greater  extent  of  time,  than  the  mark  of  circum- 
cision in  the  flf'sh,  and  the  possession  of  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan." But  both  "the  naark  of  circumcision  in  the  flesh," 
and  "the  possession  of  Canaan,"  you  considered,  most 
^\\(\tnt\\',i3i%oi  temporary  duration.  In  a  word,  you  obvi- 
ousl}-  mean,  that  the  whole  covena"ht  with  Abraham,  and 
his  seed,  has  long  since  been  abrogated,  or  ceased  to  be 
in  force. 

That  part  of  the  covenant,  then,  by  which  Abraham 
was  made  the  heir  of  the  xoorld,  and  the  father  sf  believers 
o/"all  najfions,  that  righteousness  might  s.lso  be  imputed  to 
them  and  thus  all  nations  be  blessed  in  him,  has  long  since 
been  abrogated  ! — That  part  of  the  covenant,  which  con- 
tained the  promise  of  a  numerous  and  excellent  seed,  a 
seed  as  the  -'.tars  of  heaven^  and  as  the  sand  upon  the  sea 
shore,  in  number,  and  as  kings  and  priests  unto  God,  in 
dignity  and  glory  ;  which  was  expressly  confirmed  by  the 
solemn  oath  of  Jt-hcvalT;  and  which  is  particularly  noted 
hv  the  apostle  as  a  source  of  strong  consolation  to  tiiose, 
xvho  have  fed  for  refuge  to  lay  hold  on  the  hope  set  before 
them  ;  has  long  since  been  abrogated  ! — And  that  part  of 
the  covenant,  in  which  the  All  sufficient  God,  en- 
gaged to  be-a  God  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed,  through- 
out all  generations,  has  long  since  been  abrogated! — 
Alas  I  Sir,  and  what  is  to  become  of  you  and  me  ? — 
What  is  to  become  of  the  church  at  lai"ge  ? — What  is  to 
become  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth? 

"\Miat  is  to  become  of  us,  if  that  gracious  covenant,  ia 


S^  LETTER    XI. 

which  provision  was  made  for  the  bnputatlon  of  tM 
RIGHTEOUSNESS  of  faith  to  believers  of  all  nations,  and 
from  which  the  apostle  to  the  Romans,  to  the  Galatians, 
and  to  the  Hebrews,  expressly  argues  the  doctrine  or 
justification,  is  no  longer  in  force  ?  What  is  to  become  of 
the  church  at  large,  if  God  has  ceased  to  be  a  God  to  A- 
braham  and  his  seed  ?  What  is  to  become  of  the  world, 
if  that  covenant,  which  proved  that  in  Abraham  and  his 
seed,  all  nations  should  be  blessed,  is  utterly  annulled  !— 
And  what,  Sir,  has  become  of  the  ancient  heirs  of  the 
promises^  ivho  confessed  that  they  -were  strangers  and  pil- 
grims on  the  earth  P — If  "  no  part  of  the  covenant  can  be 
carried  to  a  greater  extent  of  time,  than  the  mark  of  cir- 
cumcision in  the  flesh ;"  how  vain,  alas  !  were  their  raised- 
hopes  of  an  eternal  inheritance  ! 

The  "  mark  of  circumcision,"  Sir,  is  not  said  to  be  an: 
everlasting  "  mark  ;"  but  the  "  mai'k,"  if  we  must  use  the 
word,  of  an  "  everlasting  covenant ^  There  is  nothing, 
therefore  in  what  is  said  of  circumcision,  which  warrants 
the  assertion,  that  "  no  part  of  the  covenant  can  be  car- 
ried to  a  greater  extent  of  time,  than  this  m^ark  in  the 
flesh."  And  as  for  the  possession  of  Canaan,  I  believe 
it  to  be,  in  its  highest  covenant  sense,  aneverlasting  fos- 
session,  an  eternal  inheritance. 

Notwithstanding  all,  which  you  have  thought  proper 
to  say  to  the  contrary,  I  yet  firmly  believe  that  God  is 
still,  and  will  forever  be,  the  covenant  God  of  Abraham, 
his  seed,  and  that  he  hath  prepared  for  them  a  city.  And 
instead.  Sir,  of  your  having  "  destroyed  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,"  as  by  one  of  your  friends  it  was  exultingly 
said  you  had  done,  I  desire  to  bless  God,  and  in  this  I 
am  confident  of  the  grateful  concurrence  of  millions  of 
the  patriarch's  seed,  that  the  gracious  and  holy  covenant 
is  not  yet  "destroyed,"  nor  ever  can  be  "destroyed." 
For,  says  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Abraham,  the  mountains 
shall  depart,  and  the  hills  be  removed,  but  my  kindness  shall 
not  depart  from  thee,  neither  shall  the  covenant  o? 

MY  PEACE  BE  REMOVED. 

Youv's,  dear  Sir,  he. 


57 
LETTER  XII. 

HRV.ls"  DEJR  SIR, 

AS  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed 
v/as  the  cdnstitution  of  the  church,  formed  in  his  family  ; 
the  covenant  and  church  were  undoubtedly  intended  to 
be  commensurate  in  their  duration.  If  the  covenant  were 
intended  to  be  temporarij.,  the  church  was  to  be  tempo- 
rary;  but  if  the  covenant  were  intended  to  be  perpet- 
ual, the  church  was  also  to  be  perpetual. 

In  my  Discourses,  therefore,  I  considered  the  perpe- 
tuity of  the  covenant,  and  the  perpetuity  of  the  church, 
as  implying  each  other  ;  and  accordingly  in  my  series  of 
proof  that  the  covenant  was  intended  to  be  perpetual,  my 
fourth  head  of  argument  iVas,  that  "  The  oiiurch^  under 
the  gospel,  is  unifcrmly,  in  the  scriptures^  represented,  as 
being  the  same  church,  or  a  continuation  of  the  same  church, 
•£vhich  xvas  formed  in  the  family  of  Abraham, 

In  your  Strictures,  you  have  said  nothing,  as  1  recol- 
lect, directly  to  this  point  ;  but  in  the  third  Section  of 
your  Appendix,  without  any  regard  to  the  arguments  ex- 
hibited to  prove  that  the  post-Christian  church  is  only  a 
continuation  under  a  new  dispensation,  o(  the  pre-ChriS' 
tian,^  you  attempt  to  prove  that  it  is  not. 

In  your  introauctory  remarks  relative  to  this  subject, 
you  have  several  implications,  of  no  very  respectful  na- 
ture, to  be  sure,  respecting  the  covenant  and  church  of 
God,  under  the  ancient  dispensation ;  and  are  pleased 
broadly  to  insinuate,  that  those,  who  hold  to  their  con- 

*  By  nothing  almost  are  people  more  commonly  misled  than 
by  names.  Because  the  covenant  with  Afjraham  and  his  seed, 
is  sonrtetimes  called  "  the  covenant  of  circwncision"  some  are 
ready  to  conclude,  that  circumcision  coiistituted  the  very  essence 
of  the  covenant ;  whereas  it  was  only  a  token,  or  seal.  So,  also 
because  the  ancient  church  is  sometimes  called  the  Jewhh  church , 
sonae,  (and  I  perceive.  Sir,  that  you  are  of  the  number,)  from 
this  simple  cit-cumstance,  are  led  to  infer,  that  thf  present  church 
is  not  a  continuation  of  the  ancient.  1  cuocjc,  therefore,  to  use 
such  names  as  I  consider  the  most  proper,  ana  the  least  likely 
to  mi'ilead.  For  using  the  tip  rue  Jtrr- Chris  nan  to  designate  the 
church  under  the  ancient  dispensation,  and /.'oi-CArrs^/cn'to  de- 
signate the  same  church  under  the  ^.n-esent  dispensation,  I  have 
the  authority  of  tlie  learned  and  excellent  F.'^jJEri, — The  an- 
cient church  of  God  is  no  where  in  scripture  called  the  Jcmah 
chui'ch. — A  niinute  remark  indeed  ;  but  iiOt,-.perhitps,  iiiineces- 
sary  '. 

Let.  H 


58  LETTER   XII. 

timiance,  under  the  present  dispensation,  are  guilty  of 
acting  the  same  part,  with  "  those  Judaizing  teachers, 
■whom  St.  Paul,  in  his  epistles  to  the  Galatians,  Philip- 
pians,  and  others,  so  severely  reprehended."  To  these, 
and  numerous  other  implications  of  a  similar  nature,  w,ith 
which  your  book  abounds,  I  am  not  at  present  concerned 
to  reply.  If,  on  sober  reflection,  they  afford  you  any 
pleasure,  I  can  assure  you,  Sir,  I  envy  you  not  the  en- 
joyment. 

But  careful,  though  you  have  been,  to  keep  our  proofs 
out  of  sight ;  while  I  pasfs  by  your  impassioned  appeals 
to  the  feelings  and  prejudices  of  your  readers  ;  your  ar- 
guments^  in  tfiis  Section)  I  shall  endeavor  directly  to  meet 
and  answer. 

1.  "The  two  churches,"  you  say,  meaning  the  pre- 
Christian,  and  post-Christian,  differ  essentially  in  their 
constitutions. 

"  By  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish  church,  we  may 
understand  those  primary  laws,  by  which  they  were  unit- 
ed and  distinguished  as  one  ecclesiastical  body.  These 
laws  contain  a  declaration  of  the  rights  and  privileges, 
the  duties  and  obligations  of  all  the  members ;  and  also 
the  qualifications,  which  constitute  the  right  of  member- 
ship. Circumcision^'*  you  add,  '■'■holds  the  first  and  most 
important  place  in' this  system!''^  p.  192. 

If  you  really  suppose.  Sir,  that  "  circumcision  held 
ih&  first  and  7nost  important  place"  in  "  the  constitution, 
and  among  "  the  rights  and  privileges,  the  duties  and 
obligations,"  of  the  ancient  church  of  God,  we  must  cease 
to  wonder  that  you  allow  yourself  to  speak  of  the 
*'  church"  and  its  "  constitution"  with  so  little  respect. 
But  that  such  an  opinion  should  be  held,  by  any  serious 
believer  in  the  scriptures,  an  opinion,  so  repugnant  to 
truih,  and  so  derogatory  to  the  character  of  the  all-sxrffi' 
cie?it  God,  M'ho  gave  "  the  constitution,"  and  owned  "  the 
church"  as  his  peculiar  treasure, — cannot  fail  to  strike  the 
reflecting  and  pious  mind  with  astonishment. 

Is  an  external  rite,  then,  to  be  considered  as  holding 
"  the  first  and  most  important  place  in  the  constitution 
of  an  ecclesiastical  body?"  Is  an  external  sign  of  more 
importance  than  the  thing  signified  ? — Is  a  seal  of  more 
importance  than  the  thing  sealed? — Is  the  token  of  a  co- 
venant of  greater  importance  than  the  covenant  itself? 
"Was  it  of  greater  importance  for  Abraham  and  his  seed 


k 


LETTER   XII.  S9 

to  be  circumcised,  than  to  walk  before  God  and  Ife  perfect  ? 
Was  circumcision  of  greater  importance  to  them,  than 
that  RIGHTEOUSNESS  offaith^  of  which  it  was  an  institut- 
ed seal  ? — A  moment's  attention  to  the  subject,  must  be 
sufficient  for  the  conviction  of  every  candid  mind. 

Circumcision^  under  the  ancient  dispensation  held  no 
higher,  or  more  important,  "place,"  than  baptism  holds, 
under  the  present.  But,  my  dear  Sir,  if  you  consider 
baptism  as  holding  "  the  first  and  most  important  place," 
in  the  present  constitution  of  the  church  ;  we  must  cer- 
tainly be  excused,  if  we  continue  to  think,  that  "  you  lay 
upon  this  ordinance  an  undue  stress."         * 

But  I  ask,  Sir,  what  was  "the  constitution"  of  the 
pre-Christian  church  ?  Was  it  not  the  covenant,  by 
which  the  church  was  formed  ?  Was  it  not  in  the  cove- 
nant, that  *'  the  rights,  and  priviliges,  the  duties  and  ob- 
ligations of  the  members"  were  declared  ?  Unquestion- 
ably it  was. 

I  ask,  then,  again,  what  were  "the  duties  and  obliga- 
tions of  the  members,"  as  expressed  in  the  covenant  t — • 
yVcYt  they  not  comprised  in  the  comprehensive  in- 
junction, Walk  before  w?e,  and  be  pe} feet  ? — And  what 
were  "the  rights  and  privileges,"  to  which  the  true 
members  of  the  church  were  by  covenant  entitled  ?  Did 
they  not  consist  in  having  the  all  sufficient  Jeho- 
vah for  THEIR  God,  and  in  holding  a  part  in  all  the 
immunities  and  blessings  of  his  people  ? 

In  what  respect,  then,  did  "  the  constitution"  of  the 
church  under  the  ancient  dispensation  "  differ"  from  the 
present  ?  Obviously,  Sir,  iii  no  essential  respect.  In 
regard  to  external  rites  and  appendages,  indeed,  a  dif- 
ference is  manifest ;  but  extei-nal  rites  aifd  appendages 
are  neither  the  church  itself,  nor  "  the  constitution"  of 
the  church. 

"  The  "  constitution  of  the  church"  is  the  covenant  of 
the  church  ;  and  it  has  been  proved,  I  trust,  conclusive- 
ly, that,  however  different  the  external  rites  and  append- 
ages may  be,  imder  the  present  dispensation,  from  what 
they  were  under  the  ancient,  the  covenant^  nevertheless, 
is  still  the  same.  As  the  ancient  members  of  tiie  church 
were  required  to  xvalk  before  God  and  be  perfect^  so  are 
the  present.  And  as  the  true  members  of  the  church, 
anciently,  had  the  all  siiffcient  fehqvah  for  their  God, 
and  held  a  part  in  all  the   immunities   and  bkgsings  of 


60  LETTER    Xn. 

his  people  ;  thfe  same,  also,  to  this  day,  are  the  peculiai^ 
"privileges  and  rights  of  the  true  members  of  the 
church."'  n 

But  "  the  qualifications  for  membership"  were  not, 
you  contend,  the  same  anciently,  as  at  present.  For 
"  to  constitute  a  person  a  corjiplete  rnember  of  the^Jewish 
church,'?  you  say,  "required  nothing  more  than  to  be 
bought  with  Jewish  money,  or  born  of  Jewish  parents, 
and  to  be  circumcised."     P.  194. 

This,  Sir,  is  an  assertion,  which,  I  believe,  can  never 
be  proved.  If  by  a  complete  member^  you  mean  a  true 
sv.ember^  or  one  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  bless- 
ings, promised  in  the  covenant  of  the  church  ;  does  not 
3'our  assertion  go  directly  in  the  face  of  both  the  Old 
Testament  and  New  ? 

At  the  formal  establishment  of  the  church  in  Abra- 
ham's family,  the  express  requirement  was,  Walk  be- 
TpRE  ME,  AND  BE  PERFECT.  On  the  renewal  of  the  co- 
venant at  Sinai,  when  th%  law  xvas  added^  Moses  took  the 
book  ef  the  covenant^  and  read  in  the  audzefwe  of  the  peo- 
ple ;  and  they  said,  All  that  the  Lord  hath  said 
WILL  WE  DO,  and  BE  OBEDIENT.*  When  the  covenant 
was^  renewed,  just  before  the  passage  oyer  Jordan^  ,io 
take  possession  of  the  promised  land,  Hoses  s«:d  to  the 
people,  1  This  dai/  the  Lord  hath  commanded yo^c  to  do  these 
statutes' and  judgmejits.  Thou  s  halt,  therefore,  keep  and 
do  them,  WITH  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy 
SOUL.  Thou  hast  avouched  thI:  Lord,  this  day  to 
EE  THY  God,  and  to  ivalk  in  his  xuays,  and  to  keep  his- 
slatutae,  and  his  co7nmandments,  and  to  hearken  to  his 
voice.  And  the  Lt»RD  PAT^  avouched  thee,,  this  day, 
TO  SE  HIS  p«oPLE,'tf*  he  hath  promised  thee,  and  that 
thou  shouldst  keep  his  commandment s.\ 

Was  there  nothing,  Sii",  in  all  this,  "more  than  to  be 
bought  with  Jewish  money,  or  born  of  Jewish  parents, 
and  to  be  circunicistd  :-*?  I  ask  you,  Sir,  seriously,  ivhat 
more  is  pow  requii  ed,  in  order  to  complete,  ortriic, 
jhembership  rn  the  chinch  of  God,  than  was  anciently 
required  and  professed  ? 

Suffer  me  to  ask  further  ;  what  did  the  apostle  mean, 
when  to  the  Romans,  he  said,  They  are  not  all  Israel, 
who  are  of  IsraeFP  Did  he  mean,  that  tliey  were  not  all 
''•  bought   with    Jewish    money,   or  born   of  Jewish  pa- 

*  i'..xxi.  xaiv.  7.         t  •L'eut.  xxvi.  16 — 1'J. 


LETTER    XII.  61 

rf nfes,  and  circumcised  ?  What,  then,  did  he  tnean, 
when  he  said.  He  is  not  a  Jj^v,  xuliich  is  one  outwajid- 
XY,  neither  is  that  circumci&ion  -which  is  outward  in 
THE  FLESH  ;  biit  he  is  a  Jt^^  which  is  one  inwardly  ;  and 
CIRCUMCISION  is  that  cf  the  ^zav^t:,  inthe^spirit^and  not 
in  the  letter^  wh.ose  praise  is  not  of  me^,  but  of  God  ! 

I  ask  once  more  ;  why  "\^'^s  it  that  God  so  often  and 
solemnly,  complained  of  his  ancient  church  for  their 
treach  of  covenant  ?  Was  it  because  they  v.ere  not 
"'  bought  with  Jewish  money,  or  bora  of  Jewish  pa- 
rents, and  circumcised  V  Was  it  for  this  cause,  that 
they  were  so  often,  and  so  signally  ciiastised  ?%And  was 
it  for  this,  that  the  greater  part  of  them  Tfrere  at  length 
broken  off  from  the  olive  tree,  and  made  examples,  and 
monuments,  of  God's  peculiar  displeasure  ?  No,  Sir;  it 
v/as  on  an  account  \%^'y  different  from  this  :  it  xvas  be- 
cause o/' unbelief. 

But  perhaps  by  "a  complete  member,"  you  did  not 
mean  a  true  member,  but  only  a  person  visibly  entiled 
to  all  the  external  rights  and  privileges  of  the  church. 
But  even  in  this  sense,  it  has  never  been  proved,  neither 
do  I  believe  it  to  be  true,  that  "  to  constitute  ti  person  a 
complete  member  of  the  Jewish  church,  required  no- 
thing more,  than  to  be  bought  v^-ith  Jewish  money,  or 
born  of  Jewish  parents,  and  to  be  circunicised." 

Circumcised  children  were  members  of  the  church,  I 
believe,  only  in  a  sense,  analogous  to  that,  in  which  chil- 
dren, whose  name^  are  enrolled  in  the  public  records  as 
born  in  this  commonwealth,  are  members  of  this  civil 
community."^ 

By  virtue  of  their  relation  to  their  parents,  children  of 
the  civil  community  enjoy  many  pri\'ileges,  and  are 
placed  under  many  advantages ;  and  the  government 
stands  engaged,  conditionalh-,  for  their  recognition, 
their  protection,  and  welfare.  Bvit  though,  in  a  sense, 
members  of  the  community,  they  are  not  hov/ever,  com- 
plete members  ;  that  is,  they  are  not  invested  ^ilh  all 
the  rights  and  privileges  of  citiz-ns.,  until  furiiier  qua- 
lified according  to  established  i^g  ■lations. 

Analogous  to  this,  was  the  case  with  circumcised  chil- 
dren, under  the  former  dispensation,  as  it  is  also  with 
baptized   children   under  the    present-      Though,   in    a 

*  For  the  sake  or  iuuiTiration,  iipiricual  laingi  rn  ly  be  cpiii- 
pared  with  secular^  without  any  derogiition. 


6S  LETTER    XII. 

-sense,  members  of  the  church,  yet  they  were  not  com- 
fkte  members  ;  that  is,  were  not  invested  with  all  the 
rights  and  privileges,  appertaining  to  the  church  ;  until 
further  qualified  according  to  the  prescribed  forms. 

Different  as  the  forms  might  be,  there  was,  neverthe- 
less, a  public  profession,  a  public  and  formal  consent  to 
the  covenant,  necessary  to  complete  membership,  under 
the  former  dispensation  as  under  the  present.  Accord- 
ingly, in  the  31st  of  Deuteronomv,  we  have  on  record  a 
standing  order  of  the  church  to  this  effect. 

In  the  fortieth  year^  after  their  departure  from  Egypt, 
in  the  elcjenth  ?nonth^  en  the  frst  day  of  the  months  the 
tribes  of  Israel  were  assembled  on  the  plains  of  Moab, 
for  a  solemn  renev/al  of  covenant.  On  this  interesting 
occasion,  after  a  particular  and  impressive  rehearsal, Mo- 
ses said  unto  them  :  Keep  therefore  the  xvords  of  this  co- 
vena'it^and  do  them^  that  you  may  prosper  in  all  that  you 
do.  Te  st-and  this  day  all  of  ycu  before  the  Lord  your 
God^  your  captains  of  your  tribes^  tjour  elders  and  your 
officer Sy  -with  all  the  men  of  Israel ;  your  little  ones^  your 
wives^  and  the  stranger  that  is  in  thy  camp^  from  the 
hexver  of  thy  -woed  unto  the  drawer  of  thy  rvater^  that 

THOU    SHOULDEST     ENTER      INTO    COVENANT    WITH  THE 

Lord  thy  God,  and  into  his  oath,  -ivhich  the 
Lord  thy  God  maketh  xvith  thee  this  day  :   That  he  may 

fSTABLISH  THEE  TO  DAY  FOR  A  PEOPLE  UNTO  HIMSELF^ 
AND  THAT  HE  MAY  BE   UNTO  THEE   A     GoD,     aS    he    hath 

said  unto  thee^  and  as  he  hath  sworn  unto  thy  fa- 
thers, TO  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob. — 
Deut.  xxix.  9 — 13. 

And  Moses  wrote  this  laxv^  and  delivered  it  unto  the 
priests^  the  sons  of  Levi^  xvhich  bare  the  ark  of  the^'^cove- 
nant  of  the  Lord,  and  unto  all  the  elders  of  Israel.  And 
Moses  commanded  them  saying.  At  the  end  of  every  seve7i 
years,  in  the  solemnity  of  the  year  of  release  in  the  feast 
cf  tabernacles,  when  all  Israel  is  come  to  appear  before  the 
Lord  till/  God,  in  the  place,  xvhich  he  shall  choose,  thou, 
shalt  read  this  law  before  all  Israel  in  their  hearing. 
Gather  the  people  together,  jnen,  ayid  women,  and  childre72, 
and  thy  stranger  that  is  within  thy  gates,  that  they  }>iay 
hear  and  that  they  may  learn,  and  fear  the  Lord  your 
God,  and  observe  to  do  all  the  xvords  of  this  laxu :  And 

their  CHILpnEN  WHICH  RAVE  NOT  KNOWN,  MAY  HEAR 


LETTER    Xir.  63 

AND  LEARN"  TO  FEAR    THE   LoRD    YOUR  GoD,    dS  long  aS- 

tjelt^e  in  the  lond^whither  ye  go  over  yordanto possess  it. 

Thus  in  everv  seventh,  or  sabbatical  year,  a  year  es- 
pecially appropriated  to  religious  purposes,  there  was 
ordered  to  be  a  public  and  solemn  rene^val  of  covenant 
v,'ith  God,  such  as  was  attended  on  the  plains  of  Moab. 
And  it  is  particularly  observable,  that  this  order  had  a 
special  reference  to  the  young,  that  those  of  them,  who 
had  come  to  years  of  understanding,  might  have  op- 
portunity to  learn  their  obligations,  and  personally  to ' 
coi"isenL  to  the  covenant. 

In  this  public  profession,  in  thus  personally  and  sol- 
emnlv  consenting  to  the  covenant,  they  severally  engaged 
to  wnlk  after  the  Lordxvith  all  the  hearty  and  vj'ith  all  the 
$oul ;  as  appears  from  the  tenor  of  the  co venarlt  itself, 
and  also  from  an  account  of  one  of  these  solemnities, 
given  in  2d  Kings  xxiii.  2,  3,  which  you  will  consult  at 
your  leisure. 

But  was  there  in  all  this,  Sir,  "nothing  more  than  being 
bought  with  Jewish  money,  or  born  of  Jewish  parents, 
and  circumcised." 

On  the  whole,  is  not  all,  which  you  have  said,  so  much 
to  the  disparagement  of  the  ancient  Zion  of  the  Holv 
One  of  Israel,  respecting  the  constitution  of  the  church, 
and  the  qualification's  for  membership,  under  the  ancient 
dispensation,  not  onlv  destitute  of  scriptural  support,  but 
directly  contrary  to  plain  scripture  testimony.  Is  there 
not  proof,  "  as  strong  as  proof  of  holy  writ"  can  be,  that 
"circumcision"  did  not  hold  the  first  and  most  important 
place  in  the  constitution  of  the  pre-Christian  church. 
And  that  it  is  not  true,  that  "  to  constitute  a  person  a 
complete  member  of  the  church  required  nothing  more 
than  to  be  bouglit  with  Jewish  money,  or  born  of  Jewish 
parents,  and  to  be  ciixumcised  ?" 

What  more  does  God  now  require,  in  order  to  com- 
plete membership  in  bis  church,  than  he  anciently  re- 
quired ?  And  what  more  does  he  promise  novr,  to  those, 
who  are  true  to  his  covenant,  than  what  he  ancientlv 
promised  ?  But  if  the  requirements  are  for  substance 
the  same,  and  the  promises  the  same  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
if  the  covenaMt,  or  "constitution,"  bt  essentially  the 
same,  notwithstanding  any  difference  in  the  outward 
rites  and  forms;  is  it  not  then  clear,  that  the  church, 
though  under   %  different   dispensation,  is  nevertheless 


64  LETTER    XIII. 

the  same  Zion,  which  God  anciently  promised  to  jnake 

an  ETERNAL  EXCELLENCY,  AND  THE  JOY  OF    MANY  GEN- 
F.H ATIONS  ? 

Your  other  arguments,  I:  will  consider  in  their  order. 

Your's,  dear  Sir,  See, 


LEtTER  XIIL 

HE  V.  isf'  DEAR  Slii, 

THREE  of  the  argur/ients,  by  which  you  attempted 
to  prove,  that  the  post-Christian  church  is  not  a  con= 
tinuation  of  the  pre-Christian^  remain  yet  to  be  consid= 
ered. 

*' 2.  Our  second  argument^  you  say,  is  taken  from  the 
actual  differ ence  in  the  visible  form  of  the  two  churches. 
Tfie  feivish  church,  in  every  stage  of  it, has  heeji  national. 
The  gospel  church  is  selected  aitd particular.''''     P.  195. 

The  fact  is  simply  this  :  For  two  thousand  years, 
from  the  beginning  to  the  call  of  Abraham,  the  church 
<5f  God,  built  upon  the  first  gospel  I^romise,  v,'as  contin- 
ued in  the  domestic,  or  family,  state.  In  the  days  of 
Abraham  a  new  dispensation  commenced.  From  tliat 
era,  for  about  two  thousand  years  more,  the  Lord  was 
pleased  so  to  order  it  in  his  speciul  providence,  that,  his 
church,  still  restitig  on  the  same  gospel  promise,  but 
more  clearly  revealed,  should  dwell  compactly  together : 
And  being  in  that  situation,  they  were  necessarily  asso- 
ciated, in  a  civil  as  well  as  ecclesiastical  capacity. 

Their  civil  state,  however,  was  one  thing,  and  their 
ecclesiastical  state  was  distinctly  another. 

But  after  the  M essian  had  come,  a  light  to  lighten  the 
Gentiles,  as  well  as  the  glory  of  his  people  Israel,  the  great 
purposes  of  the  former  economy  being  accomplished,  and 
the  middle  wall,  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  broken  down  ; 
the  church,  resting  still  upon  the  same  Gospel,  now  un- 
folded with  meridian  splendour,  was  extended  to  diffe- 
rent and  distant  nations,  and  has  since  continued  to  be 
spi'ead  abroad  over  the  face  of  the  globe  ;  that  the  an- 
cient promise,  that  in  Abraham  a?td  his  seed  all  the  fami- 
lies of  the  earth  'should  be  blsssed,  might  bs  eventually 
fulfilled.  -  '  '- 


LETTER  Xlli.  65 

But  what  docs  all  this  prove  ?  Does  it  prove,  that  the 
present  is  not  the  ancient  churcR  continued  ?  No,  Sir  ; 
but  i,t  proves,  that  the  great  design  of  God  is  one^  that 
the  -.vork  of  redemption  is  one,  that  the  church  of  the 
redeemed  is  one  j  but  advanced  from  stage  to  stage, 
under  successive  dispensations,  as  best  answers  the 
Mind  of  infinite  wisdom  and  grace. 

But  the  "gospel  church,"  70U  say,  " is  composed  of 
none  but  professing  believers." 

In  the  same  sense.  Sir,  that  this  is  true  v/ith  res- 
pect to  the  ^05f-Christian  church,  it  is  also  true, 
with  respect  to  the  ^r^-Christian.  This,  in  answer  to  your 
first  argument,  I  have  shewn  at  large.  And  diffi- 
cult as  it  may  be  to  reconcile  the  concession  with  the  ge- 
neral tenor  of  your  book  ;  yet  you  yourself  have  expli^ 
citly  conceded,  that  "  the  Jezvs^  as  a  nation^  professkd 
to  he  his  (Christ's)  people.'''     P.  240  &  242. 

If  therefore,  "  it  cannot  be  proved,  ^lor  fairly  inferred, 
from  any  thing  recorded  in  the  Nev/  Testament,  that 
ever  a  single  person,  was  considered  as  a  member  of  the 
y?(j5f- Christian  church,  who  did  not  pTofess  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ ;"  so  neither  can  it  "  be  proved  nor  fairly  infer- 
red," from  any  part  of  the  scriptures,  that  ever  a  single 
person  was  considered  a  "  complete"  member  of  the 
pre-Christian  church,  who  did  not  profess  faith  in  the 
same  glorious  Messiah. 

In  your  second  argument,  then,  there  is  nothing  of  the 
least  avail  to  prove,  that  the  present  church  is  not  the  an- 
cient church  continued  ;  and  all,  which  you  have  thought 
proper  to  advance  with  reference  to  it,  I  mav  fairly,  I 
think,  consider  as  either  totally  unfounded,  or  totally  ir- 
relevant. 

3.  "That  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  are  not 
the  same,  may  be  argued,"  you  say,  "  from  several  pas- 
sages of  scripture,  which  represent  the  gospel  church, 
as  commencing  at  a  different  period  from  the  ancient 
church." 

Your  principal  passage,  and  that  indeed,  on  which  all 
the  rest  depend,  is  the  following.  -Li  the  days  of  thete 
kings  shall  the  God  of  heaven  set  up  a  kingdom^  which 
shall  ^ever  be  destroyed ;  and  the  kingiom  shall  net  be 
left  to  cth<r  people,  but  it  shall  break  in  pieces  and  consume 
all  these  kingdoms,  ajid  it   shall  stand  forever.* — "We 

know  of  no  christian  eiposltor,"   vou  sav,    "who    does 
■  —  -  ■  .^'  ,    i    ■ . — '       .i>ir.  . 

*  Dan.  ii.  44. 

Let.  I 


66  LETTER    XHr. 

not  consider  this  as  a  prediction  of  the  gospel  cKurcfi- 
But  if  this  church  had  been  set  u,p  more  than  thirteen 
hundred  years  before,  why  should- Daniel  speak  of  it  as 
an  event  still  future  ?" 

That  God  had  a  spiritual  "kingdom"  in  thp  world,  a 
kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy  nation.,  long  before  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah,  youvvill  not,  I  believe.  Sir,  un- 
dertake to  deny.  The  excellent  Dr.  Fuller,  as  quoted 
by  yourself,  speaking  of -the  natural  seed  of  Abraham, 
says — "  It  was  among  them  that  God  set  up  his  spirit- 
ual kingdom^  giving  them  his  lively  oracles,  sending 
to  them  his  prophets,  and  establishing  among  them  his 
holy  worship  ;  xvhich  great  advantages  were^  for  many 
ages,  in  a  manner  confined  to  thern^"* 

It  was  not,  then,  the  commencement  of  the  "kingdom," 
or  church  of  God,  strictly  considered,  but  the  com.- 
mencement  of  a  new  dispensation,  to  which  this  pro- 
phecy referred  ;  and  "no  christian  expositor,"  so  far 
as  I  know,  has  ever  considered  it  in  a  different  light. 
Nay,  Sir,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  even  you  yourself  in 
this  connexion,  adopt  this  same  explanation.  "Con- 
formably to  this  sentiment,"  you' say,  "we  find  our  bles- 
sed Lord,,  often  speaking  of  the  ^04;/'(?/<^i.s/)f7Z5'a?ion,  under 
the  7netaphor  of  a  kingdom." 

In  tM&,  then,  we  are  agreed,  that  the  prophecy,  now 
in  question,  referred  to  the.  gospel  dispensation ;  and  I 
agree  with  you  further,  that  in  the  days  of  Daniel  the 
gospel  dispensation  was  future  ! — But  what  is  this  to  your 
point  ? 

Because  the  gospel  dispe7isatio7i,  which  by  way  of  dis- 
tinction was  called  the  "  kingdom  of  heaven,"  had  not 
taken  place  in  the  days  of  Daniel,  but  was  then  "future  ;"~ 
does  it  thence  follow,  that  the  church  of  God,  under  this 
dispensation,  is  not  a  continuation  of  the  ancient  Zion  ?  Is 
this,  Sir,  argument  ?  is  this  scriptural  pi  oof  ? 

Your  other  texts,  brought  under  this  head,  I  take  leave 
to  set  down  together,  that  they  \nay  strike  the  mind,  with 
their  united  force.  Therefore,  I  say  unto  yon,  that  the 
kingdom  of  God,  shall  be  taken  from  you  and  given  to  a 
natio7i  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof'^ — Verily  I  say 
unto  you,  that  the  publicans  and  harlots  go  into  the  king- 
darn,  of  Gcd  before  you.  For  fohncame  unto  you  in  the 
zuaij  of  righteousness,   and  ye  believed  hi77i  not:  but  the 

*  iMat.  xxi.  43.     t  Ibid.  *!,  32. 


LETTER    XIII.  67 

•publicmis  and  the  harlots  believed  Azw.f  Except  your 
rigteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteoxisness  of  the  scribes 
end  Pharisees^  ije  shall  in  no  case  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.^     Jesus  answered,   jMY  kingdom  is  kot  of 

THIS    WORLD.f 

These  are  solemn  texts,  and  desen'e  the  most  serious 
consideration.  But  realy.  Sir,  to  discern  in  them  any 
thing  like  proof,  that  the  church  under  the  present  dis- 
pensation is  not  the  ancient  church  continued,  must  re- 
quire a  peculiar  kind  of  sight,  of  which  I  frankly  con- 
fess myself  destitute. 

Doubtless  no  christian  believes,  that  false  professors 
and  hypocrites,  such  as  were  the  scribes  and  pharisees, 
are  fit  subjects  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Biit  is  it 
not  a  melancholy  fact,  that  many  such  there  are,  even  in 
the  visible  "gospel  church  !" 

"  It  would  be  an  insult,"  you  say,  "  upon  the  under- 
standing of  men  to  attempt  to  maintain  the  two  opposite 
points,  that  new  born  infants  must  be  -admitted  to  mem- 
bership in  the  christian  church,  and  that  the  church  was 
nevertheless  not  of  this  world,  but  a  spiritual  body.  A 
ina?i,  who  cculd  believe  this,  zvould  have  but  little  di^culty 
in  believing  transubstantiation,  or  any  other  absurdity  T^ 
Thisi,  Sir,  I  quote  as  a  sample  of  your  spii-it  and  manner 
under  this  argument. 

But  do  I  mistake,  or  is  it  in  fact  true,  that  the  same 
DIVINE  PERSON,  wlio  said,  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this 
•world;  also  said,  Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them 
not  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
HEAVEN  ! — ">Vhether,  in  your  haste,  you  have  not  virtually 
charged  the  gracious  Immanuel  with  being  a  "man, 
who  ceuid  find  but  little  difficulty  in  believing  transub- 
stantiation,  or  asy  other  absurdity,"  I  most  certainly  will 
not  undertake  to  say !  I  submit  it  for  3'ou  to  considei-. 
In  what  sense  children  are  to  be  considered  members 
of  the  church,  I  have  before  endeavored  to  explain. 

"No  man,"  you  are  pleased  to  sav,  "who  examines 
Avith  candor  the  history  of  the  Jewish  church  from  the 
days  of  Abraham,  till  the  destruction  of  their  nation  and 
temple  by  Vespasian,  but  what  must  conclude,  that  the 
true  believers,  at  any  period,  would  have  been,  when 
compared  with  the  whole  nation,  only  a  small  minority, 
or  remiiant  according  to  the  election  of  graced  P.  202. 

^  Mat.  V.  20:     t  John  xviii.  36. 


k 


68  XSTTEll   XIV. 

And  what,  Sir,  if  the  same  would  hold  true,  with  res- 
pect to  the  visible  christian  church  at  large,  from  thej^         J 
days  of  Christ  to  the  present?  Certainly  it  would  be  a  ^ 

subject  for  deep  lamentation.  But  would  it  prove  that 
God  does  not  require  all  the  members  of  his  church,  un- 
der the  present  dispensation,  as  he  certainly  did  under 
the  ancient,  to  walk  before  him  and  be  perfect  ?  No,  Sir ; 
not  in  the  least. 

Hitherto,  then,  we  have  found  in  your  arguments,  (for 
so  we  must  calf  them,)  nothing  of  the  least  avail  to  your 
point.  Your  fourth  and  last  argument  I  reserve  for 
another  Letter.  I  am,  Sir,  &c. 


LETTER  XIV. 

JtET.Uf  DEAR  SIR, 

*'  Our  fourth  aad  last  argument,  to  prove,  that  the 
gospel  church  is  totally  distinct  from,  and  independent 
of,  the  Jewish,  shall  be  drawn,"  you  say,  "from  facts, 
recorded  in  the  New-Testament.     P.  204. 

If  it  would  not  have  the  appearance  of  burlesque,  and 
would  my  limits  permit,  I  should  be  strongly  inclined  to 
transcribe  the  whole,  which  you  have  thought  proper  to 
offer  under  this  head,  as  a  sample  of  your  spirit  and  man- 
ner of  reasoning. 

"  Christian  reader,  If  your  Bible  be  at  hand,  turn  t© 
the  third  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  read  and  examine 
carefully."  Such  is  the  manner  in  which  our  attentisn 
is  summoned. 

And  what,  Sir,  shall  we  find  in  the  third  chapter  of 
Matthew  ?  Whv,  truly,  that  Joh?!  preached  in  the  ivU' 
derne~is  of  Judea  ;  and  that  Jesus  -was  baptized  of  John 
at  Jordan.  These  are  the  simple  facts,  .to  which  you 
are  pleased  to  call  our  attention,  as  proof  that  the  church, 
under  the  present  dispensation,  "is  totally  distinct  from, 
and  independent  of,"  the  ancient  church  !  "  Stubborn 
facts"  indeed ! 

But  "did  John,"  you  ask,  "derive  his  authority  tb  preach 
and  baptize  from  the  Jewish  church  ?"  And  in  my  turn, 
Sir,  I  ask  ;  did  Elijah,  in  whose  spirit  and  power  Johr\ 


LETTER   XIV.  69 

was  sent^  "derive   his   authority  to  preach,"  and  anoint 
prophets  and  kings,  "from  the  Jewish  church  ?" 

You  "ask  again,  did  John  preach  the  same  doctrine, 
which  the  leaders  of  this  church  did?" — And  again,  Sir, 
I  ask  ;  did  Elijah,  did  Isaiah,  did  any  of  the  ancient  pro- 
phets of  the  Lord,  "preach  the  same  doctrine,"  which 
the  ancient  false  prophets,  too  often  "the  leaders  of  the 
church,"  preached  ?  Or  do  all  the  ministers  of  the  visi- 
ble church,  at  this  day,  preach  the  same  doctrine  ? 

My  questions,  I  believe,  are,  at  least,  as  pertinent  a« 
yours  ;  and  may  suffice  to  shew,  that  in  the  same  way 
in  which  you  attempt  to  prove,  that  John  did  not  belong 
to  the  Jevv^ish  church,  it  might  equally  be  proved,  that 
none  almost  of  the  ancient  prophets,  or  saints,  did. 

"  But  was  there  any  institution,   or  even  custom,   in 
the  Jewish  church,  which  required   John  to  baptize  his 
•   converts  in  Jordon  V — And  was  there  any  institution  or 
even  custom,  in  the  Jewish  church,  which  required  "Ez- 
ra to  establish  synagogues,   for  divine  worship,   in  all 
-  parts  of  Judea  ? 

Had  not  John,  Sir,   as  a  prophet  of  the  Highest,  a 
special  commission   from  heaven  to  call  the  Jewish  peo- 
ple to  repentence  ? — to  turn  the  hearts  of  the  fathers  ts 
the  chiJdren,  and  the  hearts  of  the  children  to  their  fathers  ? 
by  his  baptism,  specially   instituted  for  this  purpose,   to 
confirm  the  covenant,  even  the  ancient  covenant  of  God, 
with  ynarjy  ? — regularly  to  induct  the  Messiah    into  his 
sacred  office,  and  make  him  mariifest  to  Israel  P — and 
thus  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  new  dispensation  ?     A  dis- 
pensation,   on  the  introduction  of  which,  the  true  and 
faithful  part  of  the  Jews,  haying  the  ccvenaJit  confirmed 
with  them^  were  to  retain  their  standing  in  the  church  of 
God ;  while  the  false  and  hypocritical,  who  were   only 
Jexvs  outxvardly^  and  who  remained  irreclaimably  im- 
penitent and  corrupt,  were  to  be  broken  off"  and  rejected. 
Of  what  avail  to  your  purpose,  then,  were  a  thousand 
facts  and  questions,  such  as  you  have  here  thought  prop- 
er to  present  ?     And  of  what  pertinency  is  your  impas- 
sioned   address:     "  Reader,  lay   your    hand  on    your 
heart,  and  ask  yourself  in  the  fear   of  God,  if  you  can 
possibly  believe,  that  either  John  or  Jesus,  in  the  whole 
of  the  transactions  related  in  this  chapter,  had  any  thing 
to  do  with  the  Jewish  church  or  their  leaders !" — Yes, 
Sir,  they  had  much  to  do  with  them  ;  for  it  was  to  them. 


70  LETTER   XIV. 

to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  that  they  were  es- 
pecially sent ;  and  the  fan  vas  then  in  motion,  the  foor 
Tsf  the  church  was  to  be  thoroughly  purged,  and  while  the 
-wheat  was  te  be  gathered  into  the  garner,  the  chaff  wa^ 
to  be  burnt  vp  with  unquenchable  f  re .'  And  what,  Sir, 
if  a  similar  fanning  ©f  the  church  should  again  take  place  ? 
Would  it  prove  the  commencement  of  an  entirely  new 
church  ?  Did  a  new  church,  commence  at  the  tinae  of 
the  reformation  from  popery  ?  Certainly  not. — But  to 
proceed. 

"  If  we  look  into  the  next  chapter,"  you  say,  "  we  shall 
find  the  manner  in  which  Christ  proceeded,  in  gathering 
the  New  Testament  church.  At  the  18th  verse,  it  is 
said  :  And  Jesus  xvalking  by  the  sea  of  Galilee,  saw  two 
hrethren,  Simon  called  Peter,  and  Andrexv  his  brother, 
■casting  a  net  into  the  sea,  for  they  ruere  fishers.  An^he 
^aid  unto  them  follow  me,  and  I -will  make  you  fishers  of 
meii.  And  they  straightway  left  their  nets,  and  followed 
him.  And  when  he  had  gone  a  little  further,  thence,  he 
saiv  fames  the  son  of  Zebedee,  and  fohn  his  brother,  who 
alsoroere  in  the  ship  mending  their  nets;  and straight- 
xuay  he  called  them,  and  they  left  their  father  Zebedee  in 
the  ship,  xuith  the  hired  servants,  and  went  cfter  him. 
Having  cited,  in  connexion  with  these,  the  account  of 
the  two  disciples  of  John,  who  followed  Jesus,^  of  the 
scribe,  who  would yi/Zoif  him  -whithersoever  he  -went^  of 
Matthew  the  publican,^  and  of  Philip  and  Nathaniel ;  § 
you  proceed  to  say,  "  these  facts,  recorded  by  the  evan- 
geWists, place  befo^re  us  a  complete  history  of  the  commence^ 
rnent  of  the  gospel  church  /" 

Really,  Sir,  I  supposed  it  was  your  opinion,  that  the 
"Gospel  church"  commenced  three  or  four  years  prior  to 
any  of  "  these  facts*'' ,  imder  the  ministry  of  John  ;  rvhen 
yerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region  round  about, 
xvere  baptized  by  hijji  at  Jordan.  But  if  you  are  disposed 
to  give  up  that  ground,  for  which  you  and  your  brethren 
have  so  earnestly  contended,  but  which  I  believe  you 
iind  to  be  absolutely  untenable  ;  I  have  no  objection  to 
meet  you  upon  this  new  ground,  which  you  have  here 
assumed. 

But  v/hat  are  the  "  facts"  which  you  have  here  placed 
before  us  ?  Substantially  these,  that  when  Jesus  went 
about  preaching  the  Gospel,  some  of  the  people  followed 

*  John  i.  35,  37.     f  Mat.  viii.  19,  21.     \  ix.  9.     §  John  i.  45,  46* 


LETTER    Xly.  71' 

him ;  and  some  of  those  who  follo%ved  Him  were  ap' 
pointed  to  be  his  principal  ministers,  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation, which,  he  proclaimed,  was  then  at  hand!  All 
this,  Sir,  we  very  well  knew  before.  We  knew  that 
"  Jesus  during  his  personal  ministry,  did  collect  a  large 
number  of  disciples  and  followers  of  both  sexes ;  and 
that  he  sent  forth  seventy  disciples  at  one  time,  to  preach 
the  Gospel,  and  to  evince  its  power  by  miracles."  But 
that  in  this  there  is  proof,  that  the  church  under  the  pre- 
sent dispensation  is  not  a  continuation  of  the  ancient  Zi- 
on,  we  did  not  know  ! 

Neither  did  we  know,  that  Jesus  and  his  disciples 
"stood  totally  unconnected  with  the  old  Jewish  church.'* 
For  we  had  understood,  that  Jesus  taught  those  whO' 
followed  him,  that  as  the  scribes,  and  pharisees  sat  in 
Moses  seat,  what  they  said  was  to  be  obser'ued,  though 
their  works  were  not  to  be  approved;  that  both  he  and 
his  disciples  constantly  attended  on  the  synagogue  wor- 
ship, on  the  solemn  feasts  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem^ 
and  on  all  the  institutions  of  the  ancient  dispensation  ; 
and  that  he,  as  well  as  his  forerunner  John,  constantly 
preached,  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  gospel  dispen- 
sation was  at  hand,  not  that  it  had  already  come.  We, 
therefore,  did  not  know,  neither  do  we  yet  believe,  that 
"  the  disciples  of  Jesus,  with  their  Master  at  their  head» 
constituted  a  church,  a  complete  church  in  gospel  order ^^ 
any  more  than  did  John's  disciples  with  "  their  master 
at  their  head."*  They  all  belonged  to  the  same  church 
to  which  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  David 

*  "But,"  you  say  in  your  Strictures  on  Mr.  Edwards,  "who 
would  have  thought  that  a  man  professing  to  be  a  Christian 
minister,  could  be  so  attached  to  the  old  Jewish  system,  as  to 
deny  Christ,  and  his  disciples  the  honour  of  composing  and  con- 
stituting the  new  Christian  church."  As  it  is  for  arguments  of 
this  sort,  addressed  not  to  the  understanding,  but  to  the  passions, 
that  you  appear  to  have  a  peculiar  fondness;  I  take  leave,  in 
my  turn,  to  ask,  "Who  would  have  thought  that  a  man,  profess- 
ing to  be  a  Christian  minister,  could"  have  had  such  a  prejudice 
against  the  ancient  economy  of  God,  as  to  imagine,  that  it  would 
have  been  a  dishonor  to  the  Messiah,  in.  the  days  of  his  fiesh,  i:o 
have  had  any  connexion  with  that  church,  which  from  the  be-- 
ginning  had  been  founded  on  the  promise  of  redemption  by  him, 
which  for  ages  had  been  looking  for  his  comnig  with  transport- 
ing expectation,  and  to  which  he  had  given  the  most  endearing 
assurances  of  perpetual  love  ? — Notwithstanding  all  her  elevated 
hopes,  and  her  joyful  songs  of  praise,  in  prospect  of  his  coming, 
ajtd  notwithstanding  his  solemn  protestations,  that  he  was  mar- 


72  LETTER    XIV. 

and   Elijah,  and  Isaiah,  and   Sin'ieon,   and  Anna,  and 
all  the  ancient  saints  belonged. 

Inxieed,  Sir,  in  all  the  "facts"  which  you  have  placed 
beforeus,  wesee  nothinglike  "a  church  in  gospel  order," 
and  "  totally  independent"  of  the  ancient  Zion  of  the  Ho-' 
ly  One  of  Israel.  We  only  see  that,  when  Jesus,  as  well 
as  John,  preached  in  different  parts  of  the  land  of  Israel, 
calling  the  people  to  repentance  ;  under  their  preaching, 
the  ancient  coveijant  of  God  was  confrmed  xlxith  Tnany^ 
that  the  vrhole  natural  seed  of  Abraham  might  not  be 
cast  off  from  the  church,  when  the  new  dispensation 
should  commence 

The  next  set  of  "facts,"  which  you  are  pleased  to  pre- 
sent, are  to  this  effect ;  that  the  scribes  and  pharisees, 
and  a  great  part  of  the  Jewish  church,  in  the  days  of 
Christ  were  hypocrites,  unbelieving  and  wicked  ;  that 
they  were  not  the  true  spiritual  children  of  Abraham  ; 
that  they  did  not  receive  Christ,  but  persecuted  him 
with  virulence,  and  finally  put  him  to  death. 

All  these  are  solemn  "  facts,"  and  "  facts"  which  we 
have  often,  and  seriously  pondered.  But  we  had  never 
discovered  in  them  any  proof  of  your  antipsedobaptist 
theory.  This  discovery,  Sir,  was  reserved  for  you,  or 
some  one  of  your  brethren  ! 

We  knew,  that  for  their  unbeVief  and  their  obstinate 
rejection  of  the  Messiah,  a  very  considerable  part  of  the 
Jewish  people,  natural^  but  dead,  branches  of  the  good 
OUve  tree^  were  broken  off^  and  cast  away  ; — -utterly  cast 
away  from  the  church  of  God.  But  we  had  also  under- 
stood, that  the  living  natural  branch'es  of  the  Olive  tree 
were  spared;  that  with  those  believing  Israelites,  who 
were  not  only  outxvardly^  but,  inwardly  also,  Jews^  the 
ancient  covenant  of  God  was  confirmed ;  and  that 
among  them,  under  anew  dispensation,  believers  of  other 
nations,  branches  of  the  Olive  by  nattire  xvild,  were  graft- 
ed in — ^were  made  fellow  heirs  of  the  same  body- — that 
the  blessing  of  Abraham  Alight  come  on  the  Gentiles. 

I  ask  you,  dear  Sir,  were  not  most  of  the  ancient  pro- 
phets despised,  and  persecuted,  by  the  corrupt  part  of 
the  ancient  church  ?  And  have  not  the  faithful  ministers 
of  Christ  been  despised  and  persecuted,  and  thousands 

ried  unto  her,   and  would  never  forsake  her ;  yet  no  sooner  did 
he  make  his  public  appeav:\iice  in  the  world,  than  he  utterly  dis- 
owned, and  cast  off,  his  anciently  beloved  Zion,  and  took  to  him- 
self another  bride  ! — Is  this.  Sir,  the  "  honour"  which  you  claim 
for  the  adorable  Bridegroom  of  the  church." 


LETTER    XIV.  Y3 

of  them  even  to  martyrdom,  by  the  corrupt  part  of  the 
professedly  Christian  church?  What  then,  if  John  the 
Baptist,  and  Christ  and  his  apostles  were  despised  and 
persecuted  by  the  corrupt  part  of  the  church,  in  their 
day  ?  Is  there  in  this  the  least  shadow  of  proof,  that  the 
church  of  God  has  not,  in  all  ages,  under  the  ancient, 
and  under  the  present,  dispensation,  been  essentially  one 
and  the  same?  Certainly,  I  believe,  no  candid  person 
will  suppose  it. 

The  Psedobaptists,  yoii  say,  "  uniformly  argue,  that 
the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  are  the  same  ;  and 
that  the  latter  is  no  more  than  a  continuance  of  the  for- 
mer :  but  they  have  never  shewn  us  xuhen^-where^  or  how^ 
the  latter  church  was  connected  xvith  the  former :  and  it 
is  believed  that  they  never  can.  They  have  seemed 
wholly  to  step  over  this  point."     P.  207. 

How  was  it  possible.  Sir,  for  such  an  assertion  to 
drop  froni  your  pen  ?  Have  we  not  constantly  shcAvn, 
that  the  covenant  of  the  church,  under  the  ancient  dis- 
pensation, and  under  the  present,  has  been  always  the 
same  ? — that  the  church  has,  in  all  ages,  been  built  on 
the  same  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  fcsus 
Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone  ? — that,  when 
the  middle  xvall  of  partition  xuas  broken  down^  the  Gen- 
tiles became  fellow  heirs  with  God's  ancient  people,  and 
of  the  same  body^  and  partakers^  of  the  promise  by  Christ 
in  the  gospel? —t\\2it  the  branches  from  the  olive  by  nature 
zvild  rvere  grafted  in  among  the  natural  bran:ches  of  the 
good  olive  tree?— In  a  word,  that,  on  the  introduction  of 
the  present  dispensation,  when  the  corrupt  part  of  the 
ancient  church,  the  unbelieving  scribes  and  pharisees,the 
despiset-s  and  persecutors  of  Christ,  who  were  only 
yezvs  outwardly^  were  rejected,  the  sound  part,  those 
who  were  fexus  inwardly ^iind  trut  to  the  covenant,  were 
retained,  and  confirmed  in  their  standing,  and  witn  them 
converts  from  the  Gentile  nations  were  incorporated  in 
the  same  church  ? — And  is  there  nothing  in  all  this,  Sir, 
which  shews  "when,  how,  or  where"  the  post-Chris- 
tian church  "was  connected"  with  the  pi^-Christian  ?; — 
It  is  devoutly  to  be  hoped,  that  before  you  undertake' to 
•vvrite  again,  you  will  give  yourself  time  to  review  the  pub- 
lications of  the  psedobaptists  "upon  this  point." 

In  this    third   Section  of  your  Appendix,  and   other 
parts  of  your  book,  particularly  in  your  Strictures  on 
Let.  K 


74?  LETTER    XIV. 

"Mr.  Edwards,  you  appear  to  take  a  peculiar  satisfaction, 
in  degrading  the  ancienl?  covenant  and  church  of  God. 
You  think  proper  to  give  your  readers  to  understand, 
that  the  covenant  did  not  contain  the  promise  of  the  spi- 
rit, but  "was  onlv  outward  inthe  flesh,"*  (notwithstand- 
ing the  apostle's  declaration,  that  circumcision  was  of  the 
heart ;)  that  "in  the  constitution  of  the  church,  compris- 
ing the  rights  and  privilpgos,  the  duties  and  obligations 
of  the  members,  circumcision  held  the  first  and  most 
important  place  ;"f  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  even  the 
men  of  Abraham's  house  werepenitents,"J  (notwithstand- 
ing the  testimony  of  God,  that  they  should  keep  the  way 
of  the  Lord  to  do  justice  and  judgment ;)  that  the  Jewish 
religion  was  so  diverse  from  Christianity  that  for  one  of 
that  religion  to  become  a  christian  ''his  heart  must  be 
changed,"  and  until  such  a  change  "  he  was  no  better 
than  a  Judas  ;"i|  that  "to  constitute  a  person  a  complete 
member  of  the  Jewish  church  required  nothing  more 
than  to  be  bought  with  Jewish  money  or  born  of  Jewish 
parents,  and  to  be  circumcised  ;"§  that  "the  Jewish  church 
did  not  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God  ;"•[[ 
that  they  were  "pharisees  and  sadducees,  publicans  and 
harlots,"  the  despisers,  persecutors,  and  murderers  of 
Christ  and  his  followers  !^ 

These  things,  Sir,  and  numerous  others  of  a  similar 
complexion,  you  have  thought  proper  to  represent,  in  gen- 
eral terms  ;  as  if  such  was  the  character  of  the  ancient 
church  generally  ;  and  not  only  so  but  as  if  there  was 
nothing  in  the  covenant,  or  constitution,  of  the  church, 
which  required  any  thing  better.  Yet  this  is  the  covenant, 
which  the  Lord  confirmed  unto  Jacob  for  a  larv,  and  to 
Israel  for  an  everlasting  covenant  ;  and  this  is  the 
church,  which  the  Lord  declared  should  be  unto  him  a 
KINGDOM  OF  PRIESTS  a7id  a  HOLY  NATION,  which  he  ac- 
knowledged as  his  PECULIAR  TREASURE,  and  which  he 
promised  to  mrke    an  eternal    excellency,  a  joy  of 

MANY  generations  ! 

Now  I  entreat  you,  Sir,  solemnly  to  consider,  whether 
the  course,  which,  in  your  zeal  for  antipsedobaptism,  you 
have  thought  proper  to  adopt  be  not  almost  exactly  the 
course,  which  infidels  have  taken,  to  bring  into  reproach 
both  the  CHURCH  or  God,  and  the  God  himsele  of  the 

CHURCH. 

*  Api^endix,  p.  213.  t  P.  192.  \  p.  193.  ||  p.  235.  §p.  194' 
^1  p  p.  194,  201,  210,  Sec.  Sec. 


LETTER   XIV.  75 

We  know,  Sir,  very  well,  that  the  ancient  church,  as 
well  af  the  modem,  was  guilty  of  most  awful  defection 
and  apostacy :  but  it  is  the  ancient  church,  not  in  its 
corrupt  and  apostatized  state,  as  you  would  make  yeur 
readers  believe,*  but  in  a  reformed  and  advanced  state, 
that  we  hold,  has  been  continued  under  the  present  dis- 
pensation. We  do  not  hold,  that  it  was  among  those  hran- 
ches^  which,  through  unbelief  were  broken  off^  that  the 
branches  from  the  olive  bij  nature  xvUd^  -were  ingrafted  into 
the  good  olive  tree.  But  we  believe,  and  think  it  sufficiently 
proved,  that  the  living  natural  branches^  of  the  olive  tree 
■were  spared^  and  that  among  them  the  foi-eign.  Gentile, 
branches  were  ingrafted^  that  of  the  rsot  and  fatness  of  the 
olive  they  might  partake  together. 

Do  you  wish,  Sir,  to  have  it  forgotten,  that  if  the  pre- 
Christiau  church  had  its  dark,  it  had  also,  its  bright  side  ? 
At  what  period  under  the  present  dispensation,  has  there 
been  a  greater  proportion  of  the  visible  church  true  to  the 
everlasting  covenant,  than  there  was,  under  the  iincient 
dispensation,  at  the  period  to  which  her  God  referred, 
when  he  was  pleased  to  say :  /  remember  the  kindness  of 
thy  youth,  ihe  love  of  thine  espousals,  when  thoM  xVentest 
after  me  in  the  wilderness  in  a  land  that  was  not  soxvn  P 
Israel  was  holiness  to  the  Lord,  and  the  first 


IRUITS  OF  HIS  INCREASE 


Was  it  not  under  the  ancient  dispensation,  t4iat  Zion 
so  rapturously  sung ;  /  will  greatly  rejoice  in  the  Lord, 
my  soul  shall  be  joyful  in  viy  God ;  for  he  hath  clothed  me 
with  the  garments  of  salvation;  he  hath  covered  me  with, 
ihe  robe  of  righteousness,  as  a  bridegroom  decketh  himself 
with  ornaments,  and  as  a  bride  adorneth  herself  with  her 
jewels  ?  And  was  it  not  to  the  church,  under  the  ancient 
dispensation,  that  Jehovah   gave-his  assurance  of  per- 
petual love  ?  But  Zion  said  the  LsrJ  hath  forsaken  me, 
and  mij  Lor  dhg.th  for  gotten  me.     Can  a  xvoman  forget  her 
sucking  child,   that   she  should  not  have  compassion  on 
the  son  of  her  womb  ?  Tea^  they  may  forget,  yet  will  not  I 
forget  thee.     Behold  I  have  graven  thee  upon  the  palms  of 
my  hands  ;  thy  xvalls  are  continually  before  fne. 

Is  the  ancient  Zion  then  to  be  despised,  andjoaded 
with  reproach,  by  the  professed  friends  of  her  God  ?  Is 
she  unworthy  even  to  be  named,  with  the  church  under 
the  present   dispensation  ?  If  through  Jesus  Christ  the 

*  Appendix,  p.  211,  and  elsewhere. 


76  I-ETTER     XV. 

blessing  of  Ahrahain  has  come  vpon  us  Gentiles  ;  does  i^ 
become  us  to  boast ;  not  remembering  that  we  bear  not  the 
root,  hit  the  root  tis  ! — Do  you  hope  for  any  thing  better 
than  to  sit  down  with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  jfacob,  and  all 
the  prophets,  in  the  kingdom  of  God! 

I  confess  to  you,  Sir,  that  I  am  often  lost  in  amaze- 
ment, when  I  read,  or  hear  the  reproaches,  and  vehe- 
ment declamations,  which  so  commonly  come  from  your 
quarter,  against  the  ancient  covenant  and  church  of  God, 
And  I  cannot  but  think,  that  if  these  are  the  best  argii- 
ments,  which  you  can  employ  against  us  j  you  might 
very  well  give  up  your  side  of  this  dispute  into  the  hands 
of  the  avowed  enemies  of  the  Bible,  who  have  always  ta- 
taken  a  peculiar  pleasure,  in  loading  the  church,  both 
ancient,  and  modern,  with  invective  and  contempt. 

Pardon  me.  Sir,  this  plainness.  I  certainly  impute  to 
you  no  unchristian  design.  The  honour  of  God,  and 
the  interests  of  truth  and  religion,  I  trust,  He  near  your 
heart.  And,  therefore,  the  more  to  be  lamented  I  con- 
sider it,  that  an  overweening  zeal  for  a  favorite  theory, 
should  hurry  you  away  so  far  upon  the  enemies'  groundo 

On  the  whole,  it  is  by  this  time,  I  trust,  sufBciently 
plain,  that  all  your  argiiments  to  prove,  that  the  Chris- 
tian church  is  not  a  continuation  of  the  ancient  Zion,  are 
totally  unavailing ;  and  that  my  arguments  to  prove  that 
the  church,  as  well  as  the  covenant  of  God,  is  but  onc^ 
throughout  all  generations,  remain  unshaken. 

Your's,  dear  Sir,  &Co 


LETTER  XV» 


REV.  \^.  DEAR  SIR, 

HAVING  shewp  at  large,  that  the  covenant  and 
church  of  God  are  essentially  the  same,  under  the  pre- 
sent dispensation  as  pnder  the  former  ;  and  answered 
your  objections  and  arguments  against  this  doctrine  ;  I 
now  pass  to  consider,  more  particularly,  the  connected 

pubject  of  BAPTISM. 

A  qucstzoi^  of  considerable  consequence  between  ub. 


I 


LETTER    XV>  77 

a^d  proper  to  be  considered  in  this  place,  is,  Whether 
baptism  have  come  in  the  'place  ef  circumcision  ?  You 
hold  that  it  has  not ;  I  hold  that  it  has. 

Your  reasons  for  holding,  that  baptism  is  not  in  the 
place  of  circun?cision,  you  have  been  so  good  as  to  state 
in  the  second  Section  of  your  Appendix.  To  these  rea- 
sons, I  take  lea^^e  to  give  a  moment's  attention. 

"  1.  The  law  of  circunacision  was  a  positive  law,  not 
at  all  dependent  on  the  nature  and  fitness  ©f  things : — p 
this  is  precisely  the  case  with  baptism  j  therefore,  there 
can  be  no  arguing  from  one  to  the  other."     P.  187. 

If  there  "■  can  be  no  arguing"  frofn  one  "  positive"  in- 
stitute to  another  ;  yet  one  "positive"  institute  may 
certainly  come  in  the  place  of  another.  Your  quo- 
tation from  Dr.  Emmons,  therefore,  relative  to  this 
point,  is  entirely  irrelevant  ;  and  your  impeachmeat  of 
his  "  consistency"  equally,  I  think,  unfounded. 

"2.  The  institution  of  circuipcision  was  expressly 
limitted  to  maie^."     Ibid. 

ThiS)  Sir,  we  acknowledge  ;  and  it  is  also  well  known, 
that,  between  males  and  females,  under  the  ancient  dis- 
pensation, a  distinction,  in  several  important  particu- 
lars, with  respect  to  divine  institutions,  was  made.  But 
we  are  clearl}^  taught  by  the  apostle,  that,  under  the  pre- 
sent dispensation,  this  distinction  no  longer  obtains  ;  for 
now,  there  is  neither  Jexv  nor  Greeks  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  JreCy  there  is  neither  male  nor  EEMALEi 
*'  There  is  now  no  distinction  of  nations,  ranks,  or  sexes, 
with  respect  to  gospel  acceptance,  privileges,  and  bless^ 
ings  ;  no  diflference  between  Jew  and  Gentile,  or  mas- 
ter and  servant,  or  male  atid  female ; — as  there  was  in 
former  despensations."* 

As  the  distinction  is  thus  abolished,  and  females  ave 
placed  on  the  same  footing  with  males,  with  respect  to 
divine  institutions ;  no  reason  appears  why  an  ordi- 
nance,  to  which  females  as  well  as  males  are  now  admit- 
ted, may  not  have  come  in  the  place  of  an  ordinance 
which  was  anciently  restricted  to  males. 

"  3.  The  law  of  circumcision,"  you  say,  "required  no 
previous  profession  of  faith  and  repentance,  neither  in 
adults  nor  infants,  as  a  qualification  for  that  institution ; 
but  the  gospel  positively  requires  such  a  profession  in 
order  to  baptism,  without  even  an  exception  in  favor  of 
infants." 

*  Guise  on  GaL  iii.  28. 


f8  LETTER    XV. 

This,  Sir,  Is  begging  the  very  question  in  dispute. 
Neither  part  of  your  proposition  is  either  admitted  on 
ear  side,  or  proved  on  yours.  But  in  direct  opposition 
to  what  you  here  assert,  I  have  proved  at  large,  that  an 
explicit  and  sincere  profession  of  religion,  in  order  to 
complete  membership  in  the  church,  was  required  un- 
der the  ancient  dispensation,  as  well  as  under  the  present. 

Are  you  willing,  Sir,  to  have  it  understood,  that  you 
are  so  little  read  on  the  subject,  as  not  to  know,  that 
when  proselytes  would  join  the  ancient  church,  an  ex- 
plicit profession  of  religioa  was  required  of  them,  previ- 
ous to  their  circumcision  ? — With  respect  to  "  infants," 
as  the  covenant  and  church  are  still  the  same,,  their  rela- 
tion to  the  church  remains  also  the  same. 

*'  4.  A  male  slave,  bought  with  money  of  an  age  above 
eight  days,  whether  a  believer  or  an  infidel,  whether  an 
idolator,  or  an  atheist,  had  the  same  right  to  circum- 
cision, as  the  infant  seed  of  his  master  had." 

This,  Sir,  in  the  terms  in  which  it  is  stated,  is  not  ad- 
hiitted  as  correct ;  and  proof  of  it  you  have  not  been 
pleased  to  offer.  But  were  it  admitted  in  its  whole  ex- 
tent, it  would  constitute  no  valid  argument  in  the  pre- 
sent case.  For  as  already  shewn,  under  the  second  ar- 
ticle, the  distinctionljetweenyrtfe  and  boJid^  as  well  as  be- 
tween male  and  female,  is  not  known  under  the  present 
dispensation.  Masters  and  servaats,  with  respect  to  the 
church  and  its  institutions,  are  now  placed  upon  the  same 
footing. 

"  We  ask,"  you  say,  "  and  we  hope  we  shall  have  a 
fair  and  canded  answer,  if  such  an  one  can  be  given, 
When  and  where  has  the  right  of  servants,  as  distin- 
guished from  that  of  children,  been  repealed."  P.  179. 

*'  Such  an  answer,  can,"  Sir,  be  given,  and  I  am  ready 
to  give  it.  "The  right  of  servants^  as  distinguished 
from  that  of  children,"  is  repealed,  or  a  declaration  of 
the  repeal  is  made,  in  the  spme  twentij -eighth  verse  of 
the  third  chapter  of  Galatians^  which  I  have  just  before 
had  occasion  to  quote.  For  you  will  be  pleased  to  ob- 
serve, that  though'  it  is  expressly  declared,  that, , un- 
der the  present  dispensation,  there  is  neither  few  nor 
Greeks  neither  male  nor  female^  neither  free  nor  bond  ; 
it  is  not  added,  there  is  neither  parent  nor  child  !  So 
plain  it  is,  that  while,  under  the  present  dispensation, 
^' bond  men,"  as  such,   are  not  known,  with  respect  to 


LETrER    XV.  79 

divine  institutions ;  children,  as  such,  are  kno^vn ;  and 
according  to  the  express  word  of  prophecy,  remain  as 
afore-tbne. 

Had  this,  Sir,  been  duly  considered,  you  and  your 
brother  Merrill  would  probably  have  spared  yourselves 
much  fervid  declamation,  in  which,  particularly  on  the 
subject  of  ''^  southern  planters  and  their  slaves"  you  ap- 
pear to  have  indulged  with  peculiar  satisfaction, 

"  5.  The  rite  itself  is  so  very  vnlike  the  gospel  insti- 
tution, that  it  seems  extremely  unnatural  to  infer  one 
from  the  other." 

That  baptism  is  not  in  its  form  like  circumcision  is 
readilv  admitted.  But  what  does  this  prove  ?  Cannot 
one  thing  take  the  place  of  another,  unless  they  be  in 
form  alike  ?  Has  not  the  public  worship  of  God,  under 
the  present  dispensation,  come^in  the  place  of  the  ancient 
v/orship  ?  But  v/hat  can  be  more  "  unlike"  than  the 
forms  of  worship  now  observed,  and  those  of  the  ancient 
Tabernacle,  and  Temple  ? 

"  6.  Circumcision,"  you  say, "  might  be  lawfully  admi- 
nistered by  any  person,  at  least  any  head  of  a  family, 
\Thether  male  or  female  ;  baptism  is  to  be  administered 
bv  particular  officers,  in  the  Christian  church,  calied^nd 
qualified  for  the  work." 

This,  rf  true,  is  only  a  circumstantial  difFei;ence,  not 
in  the  least  affecting  the  nature  of  either  institution  ; 
"and,  therefore,  can  afford  no  availing  argument. 

Before  the  time  of  Moses,  sacrifices  might  be  offer- 
ed "  by  any  person,"  at  least  by  any  "  father  of  a  family ; 
but  under  the  Mosaic  economy  sacrifices  were  to  be  of-  ^ 
fered  "  by  particular  officers  of  the  church,  called  and 
qualified  for  the  work."  Yet  who,  from  this  difference, 
ever  imagined,  that  the  sacrifices  under  the  Mosaic  eco- 
nomy, did  not  take  the  place  of  the  sacrifices  offered, 
under  the  preceding  patriarchal  dispensation  ? 

"  Other  dissimilarities,"  you  say,"  might  be  urged, 
but  these  are  thought  sufficient  to  shew,  that  it  is  not  the 
easiest  thing  in  the  world,  to  infer  baptism  from  circum- 
cision." And  in  your  favorite  style  you  are  pleased  to 
add  :  "  It  certainly  requires  a  large^stock  of  mystical,  Je- 
suitical^ znge?iuity  to  make  an  inference  plausible,  where 
the  nature,  act,  and  design  are  so  different." — And  do 
you  not  think,  Sir,  that  it  requires  no  very  small  "stock" 
of  patience  and  moderation,  to  read  aad  attempt  to  an- 


80  LETTER  xri. 

swer  a  ^ook,  in  which,  instead  of  argument,  one  meet^,- 
at  every  turn,  with  the  out-breakings  of  a  sp^irit,  so  little 
beconaing  the  professed  disciples  oi  the  meek  and  lowly 
Jesus  ? 

Had  you  proved,  Sir,  that  baptism  is  essentially  *'  dif- 
ferent," in  its  "nature  and  design,"  from  circumcision, 
you  would  have  proved  something  to  your  purpose.  But 
this  you  have  not  proved  ;  and  until  this  be  proved,  a 
Rundred  "dissimilarities"  of  a  merely  circumstantial 
liature  will  avail  you  nothing. 

I  am,  dear  Sir,  &Co 


LETTER  XVI. 

REV.  ijf  DEAR  SIR^ 

IN  my  last  Letter,  I  endeavored  to  answer  the 
arguments,  by  which  you  would  prove,  that  baptism  has 
not  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision  ;  in  this^  I  pro- 
pose briefly  to  state  the  arguments,  by  which  I  would 
prove  that  it  has. 

1.  Baptism  is  now,  as  circumcision  anciently  was,  an 
instituted  pre-requisite  to  a  regular  stafiding  in  the  visi- 
ble church. 

With  respect  to  this  point,  simply,  there  is  no  dispute 
between  us.  Whether  children  are  to  be  considered,  as 
in  any  sense  members  of  the  church,  or  not ;  in  this  we 
agree,  that  Under  the  present  dispeiisation,  baptism  is 
required,  as  was  circumcision  under  the  ancient,  in  or- 
der to  regular  membership.  In  this  respect,  then,  bap- 
tism is  certainly  in  the  place  of  circumcision. 

2.  Baptism,  under  the  present  dispensation,  is  of  the 
same  significance,  with  circumcision,  under  the  ancient. 

As  a  sign^  circumcision  signified  the  renovation  of 
the  h^art,  or  regeneration.  Circumcise,  therefore,  the 
foreskin  of  your  heart,  said  Moses,  and  be  no  more  stiff 
necked.  And  again.  The  Lord  thy  God  zoill  circumcise 
thine  HEART  and  the  heart  of  thy  seed,  to  love  the 
Lord  thy  Gcd^  xvith  all  thine  hearty  and  with  all  thy  soul^ 
that  thou  mayest  live.     This  injunction  to  circumcise  their 


tETTER    XVI.  81 

hearts,  is  evidently  equivalent  with  that  in  EzekJel,  to 
tnake  them  nexv  hearts ;  and  the  assurance,  that  the  Lord 
would  ciramicise  their  heart  and  the  heart  of  their  seed^ 
is,  also,  of  the  same  import  with  the  promise  in  Eze- 
kiel,  A  nexv  hearty  also,  will  I  give  thee,  and  a  new  spi- 
rit will  I  put  within  thee.  Accordingly  the  apostle  to 
^he  Romans  says,  I£e  is  not  a'^erv^which  is  one  outxvard- 
ly,  neither  ts  that  circumcision,  xvhich  is  oiitxuard  in  the 
Jlesh:  but  he  is  a  yew,  xvhich  is  one  inrvardly,  and  cir- 
cumcision is  of  the  HEART,  i;i  the  spirit  and  not  in  the 
letter. 

As  circumcision  signified  the  renovation  of  the  heart, 
or  regeneration ;  so  baptism  signifies  the  same  thing. 
Except  a  man  be  boRn  of  water,  and  of  the  spirit, 
said  Christ  to  Nicodemus,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God.  In  this  memorable  passage,  being  born  of 
■water ^  or  baptized  with  water,  and  being  born  of  the 
Spirit,  or  baptized  with  the  Spirit,  are  presented  toge-  • 
ther,  the  one  as  the  sign,  the  other  as  the  thing  signi- 
fied. For  by  one  spirit,  says  the  apostle,  are  zve  all 
baptized  into  one  body.  By  his  mercy  he  saved  its,  by 
the  WASHING  OF  regeneration,  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  This  is  evidently  equivalent  tt  being 
boryi  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit. 

As  it  is  in  renewing  the  heart  that  the  Holy  Sprit  ap- 
plies the  great  atonement,  for  cleansing  and  justification  j 
so-bapti'sm  alludes  not  only  to  the  influence  of  the  Spirit, 
but  also  to  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ  :  and  to 
the  blood  of  Christ,  as  an  atonement  for  sin,  evident  re- 
ference was  also  had  in  the  bloody  rite  of  circumcision. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  too  plain  to  admit  of  any  reasona- 
ble dispute,  that  baptism  now  signifies  the  same  thing, 
which  was  anciently  signified  by  circumcision.  And  as 
baptisni  is  now  an  ins^iituted  sign  to  be  used  in  the 
church,  signifying  the  renovation  of  the  heart,  and  the 
Sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  as  circumcision  anci- 
ently was  ;  in  this  respect,  again,  baptism  has  evidently 
taken  the  place  of  circumcision. 

3.  Baptism,  under  the  present  dispensation,  is  a  seal 
of  the  same  thing,  of  which  circumcision  was  a  seal  un- 
der the  ancient. 

We  have  the  express  declaration  of  the  apostle,  that 
circumcision    was     a   seal    of  the   righteousness    of 
faith  ;  of  that  faith  xvhich  Abraham  had  before  he  zvas 
Let.  L 


82  LfeTTER   XVI. 

circumcised^  as  well  as  afterwards,  and  of  which  every 
true  believer  is  the  subject.  There  is  but  one  rightE' 
ousNESS  of  faith.,  or  which  is  the  object  of  true  faith  ^ 
namely,  the  righteounsess  of  Christ,  by  which  be- 
lievers, in  all  ages,  have  been,  and  rill  be,  justified.  Of 
this  righteousness  circumcision  was  a  seal. 

Of  the  same  righteousness  of  faith,  baptism  is  now 
also  a  seal.  .  The  imuard  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith  ^  is  the  Holy  Spirit  renewing  and  sanctifying 
the  heart,  and  applying  the  blood  of  Christ;  and  as 
baptism  is  a  sign  of  this  gracious  operation  of  the 
Spirit,  it  is  also  an  outward  seal  of  the  same  righ' 
teousness.  For  as  many^ — as  have  been  baptized  iJito 
Christy  have  put  on  Christ.  The  righteousness  of  faith, 
in  a  word,  includes  all  the  promised  blessings  ;  and  bap- 
tism now,  as  circumcision  anciently  was,  is,  undoubted- 
ly, a  seal  of  God*s  gracious  oovenant  with  his  church  j 
and  in  this  respect  therefore,  the  one  has  taken  the  place 
of  the  other. 

4.  That  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of  circumci- 
sion, we  are  decisively  taught,  by  the  apostle,  in  CoU  ii. 
10—13. 

And  ye  are  complete  in  Christy  who  is  the  head  of  all 
principality  and  poxver.  In  xvhom  also  ye  are  circum- 
cised^ ruith  the  circumcision  made  without  hands ^  input- 
ting off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  fleshy  by  the  circumci- 
sion of  Christ ;  buried  with  him  in  baptism^rvherein  also 
ye  are  risen  with  him^  through  the  faith  of  the  operation 
of  God,  zuho  raised  him  from  the  dead.  And  you  being 
dead  in  your  si?is^  and  the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh, 
hath  he  quickened  together  with  hir.i, 

"  The  plain  obvious  ideas,  which  lie  upon  the  face  of 
this  passage,  are  these:  circumcision  and  baptism  sig- 
nify the  same  thing;  the  thing  signified  by  both  is 
the  renovation  of  the  heart,  or  the  resurrection  from  spi- 
ritual death  to  spiritual  life  ;  and  this  renovation  of  the 
heart,  or  spiritual  resurrection,  is  the  fruit  of  the  spe - 
cial  operation  of  God.*"  The  apostle,  it  is  true,  is  here 
speaking  of  spiritual  circumcision  and  spiritual  baptism. 
But  if  being  buried  xvith  Christy  in  spiritual  baptisjn,  is 
the  same  as  being  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made 
ruithout  hands ;  then  external  baptism,  it  rnust  certainly 
be  concluded,  has  come  in  the  place  of  external  circum- 
cision.   

*  Emmcn's  Sermon  on  Baptism. 


LETTER  XVH.  S3 

The  four  arguments  now  offered.  Sir,  are  neither  ^hnys- 
iicaP^  nor  '■^Jesuitical ^^^  but  plain  and  scriptural ;  and  in 
my  view  amply  sufficient  to  establish  the  point,  now  in 
proof.  If  baptism  is  now,  as  circumcision  anciently 
was,  an  instituted  pre-requisite  for  regular  membership 
in  the  church  j  if  it  is  a  sign  of  the  same  significance  ; 
if  it  is  a  se<il  of  the  same  covenant  blessings  ;  and  if,  as 
"the  apostle  plainly  teaches  us,  being  baptized  is,  in  ef- 
fect, the  same  thing,  as  being  circumcised :  Then,  not- 
withstanding any  "  dissimilarities"  of  a  circumstantial 
nature,  the  conclusioH  is  obvious,  and  invincible,  that 
baptism  now  holds  the  same  place  in  the  church  of  G®d, 
which  circumcision  anciently  held* 

Accordingly,  by  the  primitive  fathers  of  the  church, 
it  was  uniformly  considered  and  treated  in  this  light. 
This  fact,  I  believe,  will  not^be  denied. 

I  am,  fee. 


LETTER  XVII. 

REV.iJf  DEAR  SIR, 

IN  my  preceding  Letters,  m  connexion  with  my 
Two  Discourses,  the  following  important  points  have 
been  made. 

1.  That  the  covenant,  of  which  circunacision  was  a 
toien,  and  seal,  included  all  the  great  and  precious  pro- 
mises ever  made,  in  Christ,  to  ttie  church. 

2.  That  God's   covenant  with  the  church  has  always 
been  essentially  the  same,  though  unfolded  v/ith  increas-  , 
ing  clearness,  under  several  successive  dispensations. 

3.  That  the  church  of  God  has  been  but  one,  and  will 
be  but  07ie,  from  the  time  when  Eve  was  first  styled  the 
Mother  of  all  living,  till  its  ultimate  consummation 
in  glory.     And, 

4.  That  under  the  present  dispensation,  baptism  holds 
the  same  place  in  the  church,  which  circumcision  held, 
under  the  ancient. 

These  several  points  I  have  endeavored  to  establish 
by  d^r,  and  abundant  scripture  proof;  and  your  ob- 


S4<  LETTER   XVII. 

jectlons  and  arguments  against  theitt,  It  has  been  my 
aim  fairly  to  meet  and  answer.  The  general  conclusion 
from  the  whole  may  be  expressed  in  two  particulars. 

1.  Children  now  hold  the  same  covenant  relation  to 
the  church,  which  they  anciently  held. — The  church  is 
the  same,  the  covenant  the  same,  the  promise  the  same. 
—Therefore, 

2.  The  infant  seed  of  the  church  are  now  as  proper 
Subjects  for  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  in  the  form  of  bap- 
tism, as  anciently  they  were  for  the  same  seal^  in  the 
form  of  circumcision. — Their  covenant  relation  to  the 
church  is  the  same,  and  the  nature  and  import  of  the 
seal  are  the  samt. 

This  conclusion,  notwithstanding  all  your  attempts  to 
make  it  a  subject  of  raillery  and  reproach,  I  am  still  not 
ashamed  to  believe  to  be  fair,  and  scriptural,  and  solid ; 
and  amply  sufficient  to  warrant  the  serious  practice,  and 
enforce  the  important  duty,  of  infant  baptism. 

In  the  present  case,  the  burden  of  proof,  certainly  de- 
volves upon  you.  Yes,  Sir  ;  I  feel  warranted,  upon  fair 
and  honourable  ground,  to  "demand  of  you  categorical 
proof,  when,  and  where  this  right  of  infants-was  vacated.''^ 
And  I  take  leave  to  insist,  that  it  indispensably  devolves 
on  you,  either  clearly  to  shew,  by  po'sitive  scriptural 
proof,  that  infants  are  not  now,  as  they  formerly  were, 
proper  subjects  for  the  seal  of  the  covenant;  or  else 
candidly  to  acknovv4edge,  that  the  people  of  God  arc 
now,  as  formerly  they  were,  solemnly  bound  to  have  the 
sacred  seal  applied  to  their  infant  seed. 

You  yourself.  Sir,  have  virtually  conceded,  that  if  the 
church  under  the  present  dispensation  be  a  continuation 
of  the  ancient  church ;  then  the  privileges  and  duties, 
with  respect  to  children,  must  be  essentially  the  same. 
In  your  '-  Strictures  on  Mr.  Edward's  Candid  Reasons," 
you  are  pleased  to  observe :  "  Two  points  which  are 
all-iiiiportant^  yea,  which  are  the  very  sine  qua  non  to  sup- 
port his  scheme,  he  has  left  totally  without  proof:  viz. 
That  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  are  the  same  ; 
and  that  female  infants  were  admitted  to  membership  by 
divine  appointment." — "  For  Mr  Edwards  therefore  to 
prove,  that  infants  had  a  right  to  membership  in  the 
Jewish  church,  is  proving  what  nobody  denies ;  and 
will  afford  no  support  to  his  argument,  unless  it  can  be 


L"ETTER   XVII.  W^ 

proved,  that  the  two  churches  are  one  and  the  same."* 

And  to  the  same  effect  you  have  expressed  yourself  in 
several  other  places.  Indeed  all  your  principal  argu- 
ments and  objections,  against  Infant  Baptism,  as  well 
as  those  of  your  brethren  generally,  proceed  upon  the 
assumption,  that  God's  present  covenant  and  church  are 
not  his  ancient  covenant  and  his  ancient  Zion,  continued 
under  a  new  dispensation,  but  "  entirely  distinct  from, 
them." 

Nov/,  Sir,  the  very  things,  which  you  required  of  Mr, 
Edwards,  as  *''■  all-i7nportant^''  and  as  "the  very  sine 
qua  non^^  to  the  support  of  his  scheme,  I  trust  I  have 
fully  done.  I  have  proved,  that  the  church  of  God,  un- 
der the  ancient  dispensation,  and  under  the  present,  is 
one  and  the  same  ;  and  have  shev/n,  that  the  ancient  dis- 
tinction between  male  oxid  female  is  abolished ;  and  there- 
fore, as  it  is  acknowledged  on  all  hands,  that  the  mem- 
bership, in  some  sense,  of  male  infants  ^\n  the  one  church 
of  God,  was  divinely  instituted,  so  females  are  now  to  be 
admitted  upon  the  same  footing.  Accordingly,  without 
any  distinction  of  sexes,  Christ  graciously  says.  Suffer 
little  children  to  come  unto  me ;  roR  of  such  is  th^ 
KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN.  Thus,the  "all  important"  points 
are  proved ;  and  all  that  is  done,  which,  according  to 
your  own  representation,  was  necessary  to  be  done^  ivu 
order  to  establish  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism. 

Upon  this  ground.  Sir,  we  may  certainly,  with  the 
utmost  fairness,  hold  you.  And  it  now  lies  with  you, 
either  fairly  and  conclusively  to  refute  the  arguments, 
•which  have  been  adduced,  in  proof  of  the  essential  one- 
pess,  throughout  all  generations,  bcth  of  the  covenant 
and  the  church  ;  and  clearly  to  shew,  that  the  ancient 
Zion  of  the  Holy  one  of  Israel  has  been  abolished,  and 
an  entirely  new  church  instituted ;  or  else  candidly  to 
acknowledge,  that  the  seal  of  the  covenant  is  now,  as 
anciently  it  was,  to  l;>e  applied  to  the  infant  seed  of  the 
church. 

Your  objections  and  implications,  so  profusely  scat^ 
tered  up  and  down  in  your  book,  respecting  die  want 
of  faith,  or  other  qualification?,  in  infants,  though  cal- 
culated to  operate  an  effect  upon  such  as  are  more  in- 
fluenced by  declamation  than  by  argument,  are  as  totally 
irrelevant,  as  thev  are   highly   improper.     TheA  might 

»  Appendix,  p.  232.  t  p.  235. 


86  LETTER   Xvni.  . 

every  one  of  them  be  urged  with  equal  pertinen  cy,  a- 
gainst  infants  being  admitted  to  the  seal  of  the  covenant, 
under  the  ancient  dispensation,  as  under  the  present.— r 
For  as  the  church  is  the  same,  the  covenant  the  same, 
and  the  seal,  though  different  in  form,  yet  of  the  same 
significance  and  design  ;  no  reason  can  appear  whv  in- 
fants are  not  now  as  duly  qualified,  and  in  aU  respects  as 
proper  subjects,  for  baptism,  as  anciently  they  were  for 
circumcision.  But  God,  who  is  infinitely  wise,  certainly 
saw  fit  to  institute,  that  the  seal  of  his  covenant  should 
be  applied  to  the  infant  seed  of  his  church ;  and  does  it, 
then,  become  men,  does  it  become  his  professed  friends, 
not  only  to  call  in  question,  but  even  to  reproach,  his  sa- 
cred institution  ? 

Respectfully  yours,  &c<, 


LETTER  XVIIL 

MEF.  b"  DE^R  SIR, 

GOD,  though  a  sovereign,  does  not  act  without 
plan.  Throughout  his  whole  vast  system,  means  and 
ends  are  connected,  with  the  most  perfect  arrangement. 
If,  in  his  sovereign  purpose  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the 
world  was,  the  eternal  salvation  of  his  elect,  was  deter- 
mined ;  the  way  and  the  moans  of  their  salvation  were 
also  determined.  And  if  in  his  gracious  and  everlasting 
covenant,  he  has  been  pleased  to  make  known  his  pur- 
pose to  continue  the  church,  from  age  to  age  to  the  end 
of  the  world  ;  it  would  be  reasonable  to  conclude,  that 
he  has  also  made  known  the  way  and  the  n^eans  of  its 
continuance. 

Accordingly  ample  provision  for  the  continuance  of 
tTie  church  is  evidently  contained  in  the  promises  of  the 
covenant.  Ixvill  be  a  God  to<:thee  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee^  in  their  generations ;  and  in  thee  and  in  thy  seed 
shall  ail  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.  In  the  first 
of  these  promises  it  was  provided,  that,  through  sovereign 
grace,  the  church  should  be  continued  from  generation 
to  generation,  in  the  line  of  natural  descent ;  and  in  the 
second,  that,  from  period  to  period,  strangers  andfortign- 


LETTER   XVIII.  "^ 

ers  shonld  be  brought  within  the  pale  of  its  privileges 
and  blessings,  until  all  the  families  of  the  earth  should  bc" 

come    FELLOW    HEIRS,     AND     OF     THE    SAME    BODY,    AXD 
PARTAKERS    OF    THE    PROMISE   by  the  Gospel.       ^ 

But  though  it  was  graciously  provided,  that  the  church 
should  be  continued  down  in  the  line  of  natural  descent; 
or,thatin  every  generation  there  should  be, amongthe  natu- 
ral offspring  of  the  church,  a  holy  seed,  with  whom  the 
covenant  should  be  confirmed  ;  yet  it  v/as  not  engaged, 
that  all  the  natural  offspring  should  certainly  be  heirs  of 
the  promises. 

The  promise  respecting  the  children  of  the  church  was 
in  a  sense  conditional ;  and  none  were  to  be  considered 
as  the  children  of  the  promise,  but  those  with  respect 
to  whom  the  conditions  of  the  promise  were  fulfilled. 
Had  not  Abraham  walked  before  God,  accoiding  to  the 
covenant  requirement,  and  faithfully  commanded  his 
children  and  his  household  after  him  ;  God  v.'ould  not 
have  stood  engaged  by  the  covenant  so  to  impart  his  grace 
to  them,  as  to  make  it  certain  that  they  would  keep  the, 
wav  of  the  Lord  to  do  justice  and  judgment,  and  so  in- 
herit the  promised  blessings.  As  it  was  with  Abraham, 
so  it  was  to  be  with  his  successors  in  the  church,  whether 
of  his  natural  descendants,  or  of  other  nations  :  if  they 
would  be  entitled  to  claim  covenant  blessings  for  their 
children,  they  must  fulfil  the  conditions  of  the  promise 
respecting  them ;  they  must  have  the  faith^  and  do  the 
Xi)orks  of  Abraham.^ 

*  Upon  this  subject  of  conditionality  I  wiih  to  be  cleai  ly  under- 
stood. The  conditions  of  a  promise,  I  consider  in  the  light  of 
means  to  an  end.  If  I  promise  a  man  a  sum  of  money,  on  condilion 
of  his  doing  apiece  of  service, his  doing,-  that  service  is  a  viean  of 
obtaining  that  money  ;  if  I  promise  k  child  a  favor,  on  conditicn 
of  his  good  conduct,  in  any  specified  instance,  his  good  conduct, 
in  that  instance,  is  a  mean  of  obtaining  the  promised  favor.  So, 
if  God  promise  mankind  the  pardon  of  sin,  on  co?ididoii  of  their 
believing  in  Christ,  their  believing  in  Christ  is  a  mean  of  cbtair,- 
int^  pai'don  :  and  if  he  promise  to  believers  the  rewards  cf  his 
heavenly  kingdom,  on  condidsn  of  their  persevering  in  the  life 
of  faith  unto  the  end,  their  perseverance  in  faith  is  a  mean  of 
obtaining  those  eternal  rewards. 

But  it  is  worthy  to  be  noted,  that  ends  are  not  the  less  certaia 
because  they  are  connected  with  mea7is.  If  God  have  determin- 
ed, that  any  supposed  ends  shall  take  place,  but  that  they  shall 
take  place  in  connexion  with  certain  antecedent  means  ;  then, 
though  the  means  are  necessary  to  the  cr^dsy  yei  the  ends  ?.re  as 
certain  as  if  tkcrc  were  no  means  ya.  the  case.    Fgr  the  divine 


88  LETTER    XVlIf* 

This  is  a  summary  view  of  the  provision  of  the  cove.' 
nant,  according  to  the  explanation  given  of  it,  under  ht 
second  geJieral  head  oi  my  "  Two  Discourses."  But  td 
this  you  have  thought  proper  to  object ;  and  have  pro- 
fessedly undertaken  to  shew,  that  my  "application  of  the 
promise  is  unscriptural."  Your  objections  to  this  part 
of  my  Discourses,  as  offered  in  your  "  Strictures,"  and 
other  things  militating  with  it  in  other  parts  of  yoUr 
book,  it  may  be  useful  briefly  to  consider. 

But  here,  Sir,  I  take  leave  to  premise,  that  rightly  to 
understand  the  provision  of  the  covenant,  is  unqestiona- 
bly  of  vast  imporl-^nce  to  all  ;  and  the  question  respect- 
purpose  secures  both  the  one  and  the  oilier.  And  if  God  have 
engaged,  by  pi'onaise,  or  by  covenant,  to  bestow  any  blessings 
upon  mankind,  but  to  bestow  them  on  certain  conditions  ;  though 
the  conditions,  in  this  case,  are  necessary  to  the  attainment  of 
the  blessings  ;  yet  the  blessings  may.be  as  certain  as  if  no  con- 
ditions were  required  :  For  all  the  grace,  necessary  to  the  ful- 
filment of  the  CQnditions,  on  which  the  blessings  are  to  be  con-f 
ferred,  may  be  secured  in  the  covenant,  or  promise. 

If  God's  flurjiose  of  election  secures  the  sa,lvation  of  some  of 
mankind,  it  also  secures  the  means  a?td  conditions  of  their  sal- 
vation ;  and  if  his  ^va.cions  firoinise  secures  the  eternal  blessed- 
ness of  all  who  believe  in  his  Son,  it  also  secures  that  fierseve" 
ranee  in  the  life  of  faith,  with  which  their  eternal  blessedness  is 
connected.  But  neither  the  purpose,  nor  the  promise  of  God, 
renders  the  means,  or  conditions,  of  salvation,  unnecessary. 

To  apply  these  remarks  to  the  case  now  in  hand  : — The  pro* 
mise,  to  be  a  God  to  the  church  and  to  the  seed  of  the  church, 
is  not  the  less  certain,  because,  in  the  sense  explained,  it  is  con- 
ditional.  For  if  God  engages  to  be  a  God  to  the, church  and  to 
the  seed  of  the  church,  to  the  latest  generations  ;  he  also  en- 
gages to  bestow  all  the  grace  necessary  to  the  fulfilment  of  the 
conditions  of  the  covenant,  with  resjiect  to  those^  who  are  to  be 
counted  for  the  seed.  I  know  Abraham,  he  says,  that  he  will 
command  his  children,  and  his  household  after  him,  and  they 
SHALL  keep^  the  way  of  the  Lord  to  do  justice  and  judgment  ; 
THAT  THE  Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham  that  whicit 
HE  HATH  SPOKEN  OF  HIM.  I  WILL  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy 
seed,  and  my  blessing  upon  their  ojfspring  ;  and  they  shall 
spring  up  as  aTuong  the  grass,  as  willows  by  the  water  courses. 
They  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be  their  God.     And  I 

WILL  GIVE  THEM  ONE  HEART  AND  ONE  WAY,  THAT  THEY 
MAY  FEAR  ME  FOREVER,  FOR  THE  GOOD  OF  THEM,  AND  OF 
THEIR  CHILDREN  AFTER   THEM- 

In  a  word,  though  in  one  sense  the  promise  is  cbnditional,  yet 
in  another  sense,  as  stated  in  my  Discourses,  it  is  absolute.— - 
Though  it  requires  parents  to  be  true  and  faithful  to  the  cove- 
nant, as  a  condition  of  covenant  blessings  to  their  seed  ;  yet  it 
absolutely  secures  the  transmission  of  these  blessings  to  some 
pfthe  seed  of  the  church,  from  generation  to  generation. 


LETTER  XVIII.      .  3^ 

ing  it,  instead  of  being  treated  as  a  matter  of  party"  con- 
cern, can  never  be  considered  with  too  much  seriousness 
and  attention. 

Respecting  this  question,  we  know  there  are  different 
opinions,  even  among  pseclobaptists.  But  it  is  particu- 
lar}' to  be  observed,  that  the  main  subject  in  dispute, 
between  us  and  you,  does  not  depend  upon  this  point. 
Those  of  mv  brethren,  who  differ  from  me,  with  respect 
to  the  import  of- the  covenant,  are  nevertheless  upori 
strong  ground,  for  the  support  of  the  doctrine  and  prac- 
tice of  Infant  Baptism.  For  if  God  have  been  pleased 
to  institute,  as  certainly  he  Has,  that  the  token  of  the 
covenant  should  be  applied  to  the  infant  seed  ot  the 
church  ;  then  whether  we  rightly  understand  the  purport 
of  the  institution  or  net,  it  is  undoubtedly  our  duty,  and 
our  privilege,  sacredlv  to  observe  it. 

Is  Infant  Baptism,  or  the  application  of  the  token  and 
seal  of  the  covenant  to  the  infant  seed  of  the  church,  of 
divine  institution  ?  is  one  question  :  and  \v'hat  is  the  true 
im.port  and  "profit"  of  it  ?  is  distinctly  another.  What- 
ever differences  of  opinion  may  obtain  with  respect  to  this 
latter  question,  thev  do  not  essentially  affect  the  former. 
And  in  our  dispute  with  you,  it  isnotnecessarilvincum" 
bent  on  us  to  shew  the  import,  either  of  the  promise  res- 
pecting children,  or  of  the  application  to  them  of  the 
seal ;  but  only  to  shew,  as  has  been  abundantly  done,  that 
such  an  application  is  of  divine  institution. 

These  observations  I  have  thought  proper  to  premise  j 
as  you  and  your  brethren  have  shewn  a  disposition  to  a* 
Vail  vourselves  of  some  differences  of  opinion  among  us, 
respecting  the  provisions  of  the  covenant ;  and  even  to 
hold  a  language,  as  if  it  were  incumbent  on  us  to  shew 
what  is  the  import  of  Infant  Babtism,  in  order  to  prove 
its  obligation. 

In  replvingto  your  objections  and  remarks,  with  respect 
to  my  \aews  of  the  provision  of  the  covenant,  my  first 
duty  is  to  correct  a  very  material  misstatement. 

In  this  part  of  your  Strictures,  you  undertake  to  shew, 
that  "  the  application  of  the  promise  to  believers  and  un- 
believers^ or  to  believing  parents  and  their  unbelieving 
children,  is  unscriptural."*  And  after  shewing  at  large, 
that  "beli-jvers  onh'  are  considered  as  partaking  in  the 

*  Appendix,  n.  263. 

Let.  M 


90  LETTER   XVIII. 

blessings  of  the  promise,"  you  are  pleased  to  say :  "But 
the  author  of  the  Discourses  has  advocated  a  sentiment 
exceedingly  different  from  this  :  it  implies  the  following, 
^ye^  parents  one  or  both  of  }0U,  he  Christ's,  then  are  ye, 
and  ALL  your  chWdxtn^Abrahavi^s  seed^  and  heirs  according 
to  the  promise '.'*'* 

Much  to  the  same  effect  is  to  be  found  in  different 
parts  of  your  book  ;  and  upon  the  assumption,  that  our 
views  of  the  covenant  make  unbelievers,,  as  v/ell  as  believ- 
ers, cAy/^re-n  o/'^^rc/jam  and  heirs  of  the  promise^  the  most 
of  your  objections  and  remarks  proceed. 

Now,  Sir,  I  must  take  leave  to  saj',  that  I  can  scarcely 
conceive  of  a  more  palpable  misstatement  of  my  senti- 
ments, than  this  which  you  have  thought  proper  to  ex- 
hibit. No  where,  in  my  Discourses,  is  any  thing  to  be 
found  like  what  you  represent  as  being  my  "  application 
of  the  covenant  to  believers  and  unbelievers.*^  No  where, 
in  my  Discourses,  can  vou  find  the  least  intimation,  that 
*'  unbelieving  children"  are  Abrahams  seed  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise. — Nor  is  this  all.  Not  only  is 
no  such  sentiment  to  be  found  in  my  book  ;  but  the  di» 
rectly  opposite  sentiment  is  most  clearly  and  abundantly 
expressed. 

Page  280,  you  have  this  remarkable  passage  ;  "In- 
deed it  is  believed,  that  Mr.  Worcester  himself  has  fully 
conceded  this  ver}'  point,  notAvithstanding  all  his  labored 
arguments  to  prove,  that  the  baptized  children  of  gen- 
tile believers  are  Abraham's  seed.  His  words  are,  "  To 
become  entitled;  then,  to  the  blessings  of  the  covenant, 
Abraham  must  walk  before  God,  and  be  perfect  ;  must 
have  true  faith,,  and  be  sincerely  ohedieJit.  This  was  ne- 
cessary as  it  respected  himself  personally,  and  equally 
necessar)'  as  it  respected  his  children." — This  quotation 
you  adduce  as  a  concession  ;  and  you  evidently  inteild, 
that  your  readers  should  understand,  that  my  "labored 
arguments"  had  been  employed  to  prove  "  a  sentiment 
exceedingly  different  from  -^his." 

I  am  constrained.  Sir,  to  ask,  Did  you  read  my  Dis- 
courses? Or  did  you  only  glance  your  eye  over  them, 
and  happening  to  light  on  the  passage  here  quoted,  im- 
mediately conclude,  that  this  was  something  "exceeding- 
ly different"  from  what  I  had  attempted  to  prove  ? 

This  passage,  Sir,  which  vou  have  chosen  to  quote,  as  a 
concession,  is  not  a  passage  which  inadvertantly  escaped 


LETTER    XVIII.  91 

TOC.  It  Stands  in  connexion  with  a  traia  of  reasoning  and 
illustration,  under  my  second  general  head,  the  whole  of 
which  is  in  perfect  coincidence  with  it.  And  instead  of 
adducing  it  as  a  concession^  you  might  with  great  propri- 
ety have  adduced  it,  with  its  connexion  entire,  as  proofs 
that  I  held  no  such  sentiment,  as  you  had  attributed  to 
me  ;  and  that,  in  all  which  you  had  previously  said,  you 
had  totally  misrepresented  my  views. 

Yes,  Sir,  I  certainly  did  say,  as  you  have  quoted,  that, 
*'to  become  entitled  to  the  blessings  of  the  covenant 
Abraham  must  walk  before  God  and  be  perfect ;  must 
have  truefaitk^andhe  sincerely  obedient';  and  that  "this 
was  necessary  as  it  respected  himself  personally,  and 
equally  necessary  as  it  respected  his  children."  And  in 
perfect  agreement  with  this  is  the  whole,  which  I  said, 
with  leference  to  "the  application  of  the  covenant." 
Not  only  was  the  whole  of  my  illustration  of  my  second 
doctrinal  head,  perfectly  coincident ;  but  in  my  improve- 
ment, I  was,  if  possible,  still  more  explicit. 

My  second  article  of  improvement  was  as  follows  . — 
*' From  the  view,  which  we  have  taken  of  the  covenant 
made  with  Abraham,  it  appears,  that  this  covenant  is 
never  established  with  any  but  true  believers,  or  the  sub- 
jects of  true  religion."  This  inference,  it  was  an  object 
with  me  to  illustrate  and  enforce,  in  a  manner  so  plain, 
that  none  should  misunderstand  me  ;  and  I  confidently 
appeal  to  every  person,  who  has  read  it,  whether  it  be 
capable  of  being  understood.  The  closing  sentence  of 
the  article  is  in  these  words :  "  And  under  the  gospel,  it 
is  only  true  believers,  such  as  are  in  Christ  by  faith,  rvho 
are  Abraham^s  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise. 

But  notwithstanding  this  explicitness,  and  perfect  con- 
sistency throughout,  you  have  thought  proper  to  repre- 
sent, that  I  "applied  the  covenant  to  believers  and  wn- 
believers /^  and  that  I  "advocated  a  sentiment,  which 
implies,  that  If  ye,  parents,  one  or  both  of  you,  be  Christ's^ 
then  are  ye,  all  your  childre?i,  Abrahams  seed,  and  heirs 
according  to  the  promise^ 

I  can  assure  you.  Sir,  it  is  with  extreme  regret,  that  I 
find  myself  obliged  to  return  to  you,  and  to  state  before 
the  public,  so  palpable  and  so  injurious,  a  misrepresen- 
tation. But  palpable  and  injurious  as  it  is,  you  have 
thought  proper  to  carry  it  through  no  less  than  about 
izoenty  pages  of  your  book.     From  the  263d  page  to  the 


SJ  LETTER    XVIII. 

283d,  the  principal  part  of  what  you  have  offered,  pro- 
ceeds upon  the  assumption,  that  I  had  applied  the  cove- 
nant to  believers  and  unbelievers  /" — Your  strictures,  of 
course,  are  totally  irrelevant. 

Something  similar  to  what  you  have  here  done,  I  am 
sorry  to  say,  Sir,  is  not  uncommon.  So  far  as  I  have 
been  acquainted  with  antipaedobaptists,  they  seem  dis- 
posed, generally,  to  give  a  similar  representation  of  our 
views.  Against  this  procedure,  therefore,  I  here  take 
leave  to  record  my  serious  and  solejyin  protest.  Let 
our  sentiments  be  represented  in  their  true  light ;  and  if 
they  v/ill  not  stand  by  the  word  of  God,  then  let  them 
fall. 

I  ho!d.  Indeed,  that  all  true  believers  are  Abraham's 
seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise  ;  that  as  God 
promised  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and  his  seed.,  so  he 
promises  to  be  a  God  to  all  true  believers,  and  their  seed. 
But  as  Abraham  was  required,  as  a  condition  of  the 
promise,  to  walk  before  God  and  be  perfect ;  to  give  up 
his  children  according  to  the  divine  institution,  and  to 
command  them  after  him  to  keep  the  ~x)ay  of  the  Lord ;  the 
same  also  is  now  required  of  all  believers.  And  there- 
fore, though  God,  according  to  his  promise,  bestows  his 
grace  upon  children,  in  covenant  faithfulness  to  their 
parents  ;  vet  the  covenant  is  established  only  with  believ- 
ers., and  none  are  to  be  considered  as  children  of  Abra- 
ham, until  they  are  made  the  subjects  of  renewing  grace. 

These  views  of  the  covenant  I  believe  to  be  correct 
and  scriptural  i  and  if  they  be,  they  are  certainly  of  vast 
importance;  and  may  serve  strongly  to  enforce  the  duty 
©f  applying  the  seal  of  the  covenant  to  the  infant  seed  of 
the  church.  But  whether  correct  or  not,  let  it  again  be 
particularly  noted,  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism  does 
oot  depend  for  its  support  w^on  this  ground.  For  as 
God  has  been  pleased  to  appoint,  that  the;  token  of  the 
covenant  should  be  applied  to  the  infant  seed  of  the  church, 
this  institution  is  to  be  sacredly  obseived,  whether  we  see 
the  reason  or  profit  of  it  correctly  or  not.  ■"■ 

Your's,  dear  Sir,  &c. 


Sid 
LETTER,  XIX. 

HEV.i:;  DEAR  SIR, 

THOUGH  by  far  the  greater  part  of  what  you  itij 
tended  should  bear  upon  my  second  doctrinal  head,  as  it 
proceeded  upon  a  wrong  statement  of  my  sentiments,  is 
totally  irrelevant ;  yet  there  are  some  things  interspersed 
in  your  book,  which  militate  with  what  I  really  hold  to 
be  the  provision  of  the  covenant.  These  I  shall  now  at* 
tempt  to  collect  and  answer. 

1.  "  By  the  special  appointment  of  God,  Abraham," 
you  say,  was  placed  in  a  situation,  different  froni  all  other 
believers ;  and  in  this  peculiar  situation,  many  thingis 
were  promised  to  his  seed,  which  are  not  promised  to 
the  seed  of  other  believers."  P.  269. 

This,  Sir,  in  a  limited  sense,  is  true.  Abraham  un- 
doubtedly was,  "by  the  special  appointment  of  God," 
made  the  patriarch  of  the  church,  and  the  father  of  theni 
that  believe  ;  and  to  him,  in  this  high  character,  some 
promises  were  made,  which  are  not,  in  the  same  sense, 
made  to  other  believers.  Biit  it  does  not  hence  follow, 
that  the  promise;  to  be  a  God  to  thee.,  and  to  thy  seed  after 
thee.,  was  in  such  a  sense  peculiar  to  Abraham  as  to  have 
no  application  to  others.  On  the  contrary,  from  express 
declarations  of  scripture,  too  numerous  to  be  cited,  it  is 
evident  this  great  promise  is  6f  general  application, 

I knciv  Abraham.,  that  he  uill  coyiUAJfii  his  children^ 
and  his  household  after  hi7n ;  and  they  shall  keep  the 
way  of  the  Lord  to  do  justice  and  judgment ;  that  the  Lord 
may  bring  upon  Abraham  that  xvhith  he  hath  spoken  of 
hi?n.*  It  will  not,  I  trust,  be  deemed,  that  in  this  de- 
claration, the  Lord  had  reference,  directly,  to  the  pro- 
mise made  to  Abraham,  to  be  a  God  to  him  and  to  his  seed 
after  him.  But  in  perfect  coincidence  with  this  is  thei 
general  direction  and  promise  :  Train  itp  a  child  in  the 
rvay  he  shoidd  go  ;  and  xvhen  he  is  old.,  he  xvill  not  depart 
therefro7n.\  In  perfect  agreenicnt  with  this  also,  are  the 
memorable  words  of  the  Psalmist  .•  He  established  a  teS' 
thnony  in  facob.,  and  appointed  a  law  in  Israel.,  ivhich  he 
commanded  our  fathers  that  they  shdidd  make  them  known 
to  their  children  ;  that  the  generation  to  come  might 
know  them^  even  the  children   that  shuidd  be  born^  who 

*  Gen.  xviii.  19,  t  Prov.  xxii.  6. 


94  tETTBR   XIX. 

should  arise  and  declare  them  to  thejr  children  t  That 

THEY  MIGHT  SeT  THEIR  HOPE  IN  GoD,  AND  NOT  FORGET 

THE  WORKS  or  God,  but  keep  his  commandments.* 
In  this  passage,  is  it  not  clearly  represented,  that  accor- 
ding to  the  covenant  of  God,  piety  was  to  be  handed 
down  from  parents  to  children,  by  means  of  parental 
fidelity  and  care  ? 

One  principal  purpose,  for  which  John  was  sent,  in  the 
spirit  and  power  of  Elijah,  was,  to  turn  the  heart  of 
the  father  unto  the  children^  and  the  heart  of  the  children 
to  their  fathers ;  and  in  this  way,  according  to  the  tenor 
^f  the  everlasting  covenant,  to  make  ready  a  people  pre' 
pared  for  the  Lord;  kst  he  should  come,  and  stnite  the 
earth  with  a  curse.'f 

Please  to  observe,  Sir ;  so  important  was  the  covenant 
provision,  with  respect  to  children,  that  owing  to  a  neg- 
lect and  contempt  of  it,  the  earth  was  in  danger  of  being 

smitten  with  a  CURSE. 

As  for  me,  this  is  my  covenant  roith  them^  saith  the 
Lord.  (What  covenant  P  Undoubtedly  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  and  his  seed.)  My  spirit  ruhich  is  upon  thee^ 
and  my  words  rvhich  I  have  put  in  thy  mouthy  shall  not 
depart  out  of  thy  mouth,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy 
SEED,  nor  out  of  the  mouth  of  thy  seed's  seed,  saith  the 
Lord^  from  henceforth  and  forever.  And  I  wiill  direct 
their  work  in  truth;  and  I  will  make  an  everlasting 
covenant  with  them.  And  tkeir  seed  shall  be  known 
among  the  Gentiles^  and  their  offspring  among  the 
people*  All  that  see  them  shall  acknoxvledge  them^  that 
they  are  the  seeq  which  the  lord  hath  blessed. 
They  shall  not  labor  in  vain^  nor  bring  forth  for  trouble ; 
for  they  are  the  seed  of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord^  and 
their  offspring  with  them.  And  they  shall  be  my 
peopky  and  I  will  be  their  God.  Arid  I  will  give  them  one 
hearty  and  one  way^  that  they  may  fear  me  for  ever^  for 
the  good  of  them,  '-and    of    their   children    after 

THEM.  J 

Now,  Sir,  suffer  me  to.  ask,  are  not  children,  in  these 
covenant  promises,  connected  with  their  parents  ?  Does 
not  Jehovah,  here,  expressly  engage  to  bestow  spiritual, 
and  saving  blessings  upon  the  offspring  of  the  church,  as 
he  promised  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham's  seed?  And  if  so  ; 

*   Psalm  Ixxviii  5—7        f  Hopkins  System,    Vol.  p.  259 
%  Mat.  iv.  6.    Luke  i.  17. 


LETTER    XIX.  9-5 

of  what  avail  to  yonr  point  is  3'our  distinction  between 
the  situation  of  Abraham  and  that  of  other  believers  ? 

Upon  your  antipaedobaptist  principles,  what  can  be  the 
meaning  of  these,  and  numerous  other  similar  promises, 
with  which  the  Scriptures  abound  ?  Why  are  children, 
in  covenant  promises  made  to  the  church,  so  constantly 
connected  with  their  parents  ?  The  question  is  worthy 
of  your  serious  consideration  ;  and  is  entitled  to  a  fair 
and  satisfactory  answer. 

2.  You  make  a  distinction  between  "  the  natural  de- 
scendants of  Abraham  and  Gentile  believers." 

After  conceding  "  in  a  general  xvay^^  as  you  seem  to 
have  been  constrained  to  do,  by  an  unpropitious  quota- 
lion  from  the  excellent  Dr.  Fuller,  "that  spiritual  bless- 
mgs  xvere  promised^'*  in  the  covenant,  *'  to  the  natural 
seed  I  of  Abraham^''  you  are  pleased  to  observe  :  "  All 
this  may  be  readily  admitted^  with  respect  to  Abraham 
and  his  descendants  ;  but  it  does  not  prove,  that  the 
same  things  are  engaged,  or  fulfilled,  to  gentile  be- 
lievers !"  P.  271. 

Really,  Sir,  this  is  ''^ admitting''  a  great  deal.  We 
have  always  understood  you  to  hold,  that  God's  ancierit 
covenant  with  his  church  has  been  annulled  ;  but  we  had 
not,  until  now,  understood,  that  you  would  so  "readily 
admit"  that  oovenant  to  have  contained  greater  and 
richer  promises,  than  are  made  to  the  church,  under  the 
present  dispensations ! 

According  to  your  "admission,"  in  his  ancient  cove- 
nant, God  did  engage,  "  in  a  general  way",  to  believers, 
to  be  a  God,  not  only  to  them,  but  also  to  their  seed; 
not  only  to  save  them,  but  also  to  bestow  "  spiritual 
blessings"  upon  their  ofispring.  But  "  to  Gentile  be- 
lievers the  same  things  are  neither  engaged^  nor  fulfill- 
ed !" — After  this,  Sii-,  you  will  no  more,  I  hope,  think 
it  strange,  that  we,  of  the  psedobaptist  faith,  are  zealous 
in  our  adherence  to  God's  gracious  covenant  with  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed ! 

However,  I  trust  I  have  not  failed  to  make  it  appear, 
that  the  same  everlasting  covenant,  which  v/as  to  abide, 
though  the  mountains  depart^  and  the  hills  be  removed^  is 
still  God's  covenant  with  his  church  j  and  therefore,  that 
"  the  same  things,"  for  substance,  are  now  "  engaged, 
and  fulfilled,  to  Gentile  believers,"  which  anciently  were 
fo  the  patriarch,  and  his  descendants."     All  who  are 


96  LETTER    XIX. 

Christ'' 3  are  Abraham'' s  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  tfie 
promise.  And  therefore,  the  blessing  of  Abraham^  not 
merely  "  external  church  privileges,  such  as  the  bap- 
tizing and  constituting  children  church  members,"  as, 
when  it  suits  your  purpose,  you  would  have  it  thought 
that  we  hold,  but  every  blessing  of  the  covenant,  has 
come  upon  the  Gentiles. 

3.  A  great  proportion  of  believers,  "  you  say,"  are 
single  persons,  who  have  neither  companions  nor  chil- 
dren ;  and  many  who  live  and  die  childless."  P.  266. 

This  you  have  repeatedly  alledged,  with  an  air  of 
great  assurance,  as  if  it  were  a  conclusive  proof,  that 
God's  covenant  with  the  church  can  have  no  respect  to 
children. 

"  We  ha\*e  already  seen,"  you  are  pleased  to  assure  us, 
"  that  a  large  proportion  of  believers  die  without  issue. 
If  this  promise,  "in  its  full  force,"  you  add,  "has  been 
transmitted  to  them,  it  required,  besides,  their  faith  and 
fidelity,  pother  condition,  which  the  author  of  the  Dis- 
courses  has  overlooked.  It  must  run  to  them  and  to 
their  seed,  provided  they  have  any.^' 

Really,  Sir,  there  is  a  very  great  infelicity,  attending* 
your  objections  and  arguments.  The  righteous  is  ever 
merciful  and  lendeth;  his  seed  ("  provided  he  have 
any,"  according  to  you  it  should  have  been  !)  is  blessed. 
The  just  man  walketh  in  his  integrity ;  his  children 
("  provided  he  have  any !")  are  blessed  after  him.  The 
unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  -wife,  and  the  un- 
believing -w'lfe  is  sanctified  by  the  husband;  else  -were  your 
children  ("  provided  }<Du  have  any !")  unclean ;  but  7iow 
are  they  holy. 

If,  in  your  view,  the  scriptures  are  not  sufficiently  ac- 
curate, I  hope.  Sir,  at  least,  you  will  not  charge  the 
fault  to  my  account, 

*'  There  is  also,"  you  say,  "  a  very  material  difference 
tvith  respect  to  the  kind  of  faith,  with  which  the  blessing 
of  Abraham  is  connected.  The  Apoatle  gives  no  inti- 
mation, that  he  means  any  other  faith,  than  that  which 
is  common  to  every  believer ;  that  is,  faith  in  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  Saviour  of  the 
world.  But  Mr.  Worcester's  faith,  to  which  the  promise 
of  God  is  conditionally  made,  is  a  faith  respecting  the 
salvation  of  our  children.  None  of  these  (who  have  no 
children,)  can  be  supposed  to  have  this  kind  of  faith." 
P.  266. 


LEiTTER  xiM;  97 

I  asic  yoii,  Sir,  are  there  not  many  promises  made  to 
tiie  people  of  God,  besides  the  simple  promise,  He  that 
heVieveth  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall  be  saved?  Are 
there  not  promises,  adapted  to  all  the  various  circum- 
stances and  situations,  both  of  the  church  at  large,  and 
of  individual  believers?  May  not  some  believers  be  in  a 
situation  to  exercise  faith  in  some  particular  promises, 
in  which  others  are  not?  But  because  one  believer  ex- 
eixiscs  faith  in  a  particular  promise,  in  which  another 
does  not ;  is  it  therefore  to  be  concluded,  that  the  faith 
of  the  one  is  of  q.  different  "kind"  from  that  of  the  other  i 
No,  Sir  ;  but  the  sa^ne  kind  of  faith  may  be  exercised  in 
different  situations,  with  respect  to  different  promises. 

This  idea.  Sir,  I  believe  to  be  of  sufHcient  importance 
to  engage  vour  serious  attention. 

In  disputing  with  us  with  respect  to  the  covenant,  you 
and  your  brethren  appear  to  confine  yourselves  to  the 
single  promise  of  salvation  to  those  who  believe  ;  as  if 
this  %vere  the  orilv  promise  made  to  God's  people.  This 
I  believe  to  be  a  fruitful  source  of  mistake  and  error. — . 
The  promises  made  to  the  church,  and  to  believers,  in- 
dividually, are  certainly  numerous  and  various.  These 
promises  are  all  contained  in  the  covenant,  confirmed  by 
God  in  Christ.  By  some  true  believers  more  of  the 
promises  are  understood,  and  believingly  embraced, 
than  by  others  ;  and  therefore  some,  more  extensively 
than  others,  enjoy  the  promised  Messings. 

By  sonle  the  greai  promise  of  the  covenant— fo  be  a 
God  unto  thee^  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee — may  be  under- 
stood and  embraced,  in  its  whole  extent ;  while  by  othtsrs 
it  may  be  understood  and  embraced,  but  in  part.  But  to 
intie.  Sir,  I  confess,  it  appears  to  be  a  matter  of  infinite 
importance,  that  this  promise  be  well  understood,  and 
believinglv  embraced,  in  its  whole  extent. 

4.  "  According  to  Mr.  Worcester,"  you  say,  "  if  we 
rightly  understand  him,  the  salvation  of  the  children  of 
believers  depends  principally  upon  the  faith  and  fidelity 
of  their  parents."  But  "  there  is  not  a  word  of  this  con- 
ditional business"  (in  the  chapter,  on  w^hich  the  Dis- 
courses are  founded,)  "  about  the  faith  and  fidelity  of 
parents,  by  which  their  children  become  subjects  of 
grace  ;  but  according  to  the  Apostle,  both  parents  and 
children  become  subjects  of  grace  only  by  becoming  be- 
lievers in  Christ."  P.  264,  265* 
Let.  N. 


98  LETT Ea    sir:. 

It  is  not  possible,  Sir,  that  you  should  have  iradcr- 
stood  me  to  hold,  that  any,  either  parents  or  childreriy 
are  ever  saved,  otherwise  than  by  the  sovereign  grace  of 
God  in  Christ  Jesus  the  Saviour.  The  representation, 
therefore,  whieh,  in  this  instance,  as  well  as  in  others, 
you  have  thought  proper  to  give  of  my  sentiments,  I' 
must  leave  to  your  reflections  in  a  serious  houn 

But,  that  God,  in  his  sovereign  wisdom  and  grace, 
Vias  been  pleased  to  make  mention  of  children  in  his  cove- 
nant with  his  church,  I  certainly  do  believe  ;  and  I  trust 
it  has  been  made  to  appear,  that  for  this  belief,  I  have 
ample  and  scriptural  ground.  I  also  b/elieve,  that,  tliough 
none  are  saved,  otherwise  than  bv  the  sovereign  grace  of 
God  in  Christ;  yet  there  are  divinely  instituted  nneans, 
through  M^iich,  ordinarily,  the  grace  of  salvation  is  confer- 
red; and  among  these  instituted  means,  "the  faith  and 
fidelity  of  parents,"*  with  respect  to  their  children,  hold  a 
most  important  place. 

I  can,  therefore,  assure  you,  Sir,  that  I  am  far  from 
yielding  to  the  doctrine,  that  it  can  be  of  no  use  to  give 
up  our  children  to  God  in  his  instituted  waj',  and  to 
bring  them  up  for  him  in  that  holy  nurture  and  admo- 
nition^ which  he  has  graciously  appointed. 

"  But,"  you  are  pleased  to  ask,  "  will  any  one  hazard 
the  assertion,  that  Isaac  had  any  different  exercises  of 
faith  for  Jacob,  or  manifested  any  fidelity  towards  him, 
which  he  did  not  towards  Esau.  Or  was  it  the  sovereign 
power  of  God  alone,  that  made  Jacob  the  lot  of  his  in- 
heritance, rather  than  Esau,  totally  independent  of  either 
the  faith  or  fidelity  of  the  pious  parents  r"     P.  265. 

In  reply,  I  take  leave  to  ask,  "  Will  any  one  hazard 
the  assertion,  that  Isaac  had"  not  "different  exeixises  of 
faith,"  respecting  Jacob,  from  what  he  had,  respecting 
Esau  ?  Or  will  anv^  one  undertake  to  say,  that  "the  faith' 
and  £delity  of  the  pious  parents"  were  not^  in  the  "  sove- 
reign" purpose  of  God,  indispensably  connected  witl^ 
Jacob's  being  made  an  heir  of  the- promise  ? 

This  is  not  the  only  instance,  in  which  you  have  thought 
proper  to  represent  the  purposes  and  promises  of  God, 
respecting  the  salvation  of  mankind,  as  being  in  such  a 
sense  absolute,  as  entirely  to  preclude,  or  supersede,  all 
conditions  and  means.  In  page  259,  speaking  of  the 
gospel  promise  to  Abraham — In  thee  shall  all  nations  be 
blessed — ^you  have  these  remarkable  words,    "  This  pro- 


t  LETTER-"klX.  99 

-Ttiise  did  not  depend  at  all  upon  the  obedience  of  Abra- 
ham, or  anv  other  creature.  It  was  in  no  sense  con- 
.  ditional.  The  divine  veracity  was  pledged  for  its  fulfil- 
.-ment.  And  whether  circumcision  had  been  instituted 
or  not,  God  would,  in  the  fulness  of  times,  have  sent  his 
Son  into  the, world,  and  wculd  have  blessed  the  nations 
inhira!" 

Had  Abraham,  then,  in  direct  disobedience  to  the  di- 
vine command,  continued  till  the  day  of  his  death,  among 
his  idolatrous  connexions,  in   Ur  of  the  Chaldees  ;  he 
would,  nevertheless,  have  been  the  father  of  all  that  be- 
lieve^  and  in  him  all  nations  loould  have  been  blessed! — ■ 
Had  he  utterly  refused  to  submit  to  circumcision,   and 
not  one  of  his  posterity  had  ever  been  circumcised;  yet 
Jehovah  would  have  been  a  God  to  him,,  and  to  his  seed 
after  him;  Canaan  would  have  been -given  them  for  a 
possession  ;  to  them  would  have  pertained  the  adoption 
and  the  glory,,  and  the  covenants;  and  of  them   Jesus 
Christ  would  have  come,  a  minister  of  the  circumcision^ 
for  the  truth  of  God,,  to  confirm  the  premises  made  unto 
the  fathers  !  Had  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  every 
one  of  their  descendants,  been   altogether  disobedient, 
and  treated   all  the  divine  ordinances  with  utter  con- 
tempt;  still  the  fuhiess  of  times  would  have  seasonably 
arrived,  every  preparation  would  have  been  seasonably/ 
made  ;  and  the  promised  Messiah  would  have  appeared, 
a  light  to  rtghten  the  Gctitiles^  and  the  glory  of  his  people 
Israel !  Nay,  hadnotonlv  Abraham,  and  all  his  posterity, 
-but  also  every  individual  of  the  Gentile  nations,  been 
utterly  disobedient  to  all  the  j-equirements  and  ordinances 
of  God,  both  under  the  ancient  dispensation,  and  under 
the  present ;  still  the  divine  promise — I)i  thee,,  and  in  thy 
ee^d,,  shall  all  the  Jiatio7is  of  th.e  earth  be  blessed — vrould 
have  been  duly  fulfilled !  For  "  this  promise,"  you  say, 
**  did  not  depend  atall  upon  the  obedience  of  Abraham,,  or 
anij  other  creature,,  and  xvas  Ik.  no  sense  conditioyial .'" 

Now,  Sir,  I  confess  to  you  freely,  I  am  neither  an  An- 
.tinomian,  nor  a  Predestinaiian  of  this  sort.  I  do  notbe- 
Jieve  this  to  be  a  doctrine  of  Scripture  ;  but  I  believe  \t 
to  be  a  doctrine,  as  dangerous  in  its  tendency,  as  it  is 
absurd  in  its  principle. 

In  the  perfect  plan  of  infinite  v/isdom  and  grace,  means 
and  ends,  antecedents  and  consequents,  are,  I  believe, 
^.annoniously  arranged,   ^d  infallibly  connected*     In 


the  same  dmneplan,  all  the  blessings,  promised  to  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed,  were,  I  believe,  inseparably  connecte4 
with  his  faith  and  obedience;  and  circumcision,  the 
establishment  of  the  church  in  his  family,  and  all  the  or- 
dinances and  arrangements  of  the  ancient  economy,  were 
indispensably  necessary  to  prepare  the  %yay  for  the  com- 
ing of  the  Messiah,  and  the  eventual  extension  of  the 
blessings  of  his  kingdom  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
And  I  also  believe,  that  if,  by  "  the  sovereign  power  of 
Godj''  any  pf  mankind  are  made  subjects  of  grace,  and 
heirs  of  glory ;  it  is  only  in  the  way  v>^hich  infinite  wis- 
dom had  before  appointed  ;  and  that  in  rio  single  instance 
will  the  purpose  ofGcd^  according  to  election,  standi  with- 
out the  means  which,  in  that  purpose,  were  made  ne- 
<:esEa5;;y  to  the  end. 

On  this  principle,  there  is  evident  propriety  in  preach- 
ing the  gospel,  and  beseeching  men  to  become  reconciled 
to  God  j  and  v/e  have  every  inducement  to  diligence,  and 
fidelity,  in  the  great  and  interesting  work.  And  on  this 
same  principle,  the  faith  and  fidelity  of  parents  in  cove- 
nant, with  respect  to  their  children,  instead  of  being  re- 
proached and  treatejl  Ayith  lightness,  ought  ever  to  be 
considered,  and  inculcated,  as  of  infinite  importance* 

This  Letter  is  already  drawn  out  to  a  greater  length 
than  I  intended  j  but  before  I  close  it,  a  moment's  attenr 
lion  must  be  given  to  a  series  of  "  questions,"  and  "  con- 
sequences," in  the  second  Section  of  your  Appendix; 
with  which,  it  is,  manifest  you  were  very  much  con- 
fused yourself,  and  seem  to  imagine  that  your  opponents 
must  be  no  less  confounded. 

"  1.  Did  this  promise  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham's  seed 
respect  his  natural  or  spiritual  seed  V 

Answer.  It  respected  all,  who  are  heirs  according  to 
the  promise  ;  primarily  "those  of  his  own  posterit\%  ^nd 
secondarily  those  of  ether  nations.  T/ze  children  ^ 
the  PROMISE  are  counted  for  the  seed. 

"•  2.  Was,  this  promise  absolute^  or  was  it  conditionfiPy 

Anstver.  As  already  explained,  it  was  in  one  sense 
conditional,  and  in  another  sense  absolute. 

"  5.  What  were  the  conditions,  on  vvhich  its  blessing? 
were  suspended  ?" 

Ans.   Faith  and  obedience,  or  fidelity. 

These  concise  and  simple  answers  are  sufficient,  I 
trust,  to  shew,  that  your  questions  are  net  to  Ui'  so  cor;- 


LETTER  XIX.  lOi 

founding,  as  you  seem  to  imagine  they  must  be ;  and 
that  all,  which,  in  connexion  with  them,  you  have  thought 
proper  tq  say,  about  "  absoUite  promises,"  about  "  uni- 
versalists"  and  "madness,"  about  "  Esau,  Achan,  Ko- 
rah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram,"  about  "■  Gentile  unbeliev- 
ers," and  about  "  tradition,"  only  serves,  to  furnish 
additional  proof,  how  liable  men  are  to  darken  coun- 
sel by  words  without  knowledge,  and  to  utter  themselves 
at  random,  when  they  iiave  nothing  to  the  purpose  to 
offer. 

With  respect  tQ  the  subject  of  '^southern  planters  and 
their  slaves,"  on  which  you,  and  your  brother  Merrill  ap- 
pear to  dwell  with  uncommon  satisfaction,  I  have  only 
to  repeat,  that  although,  under  the  present  dispensation, 
there  is  neither-  male  nor  fenmle^  neither  bond  nor  free ; 
yet  there  arc  parents  and  children."^ 

As  Vv'c  are  not,  in  order  to  be  consistent,  obliged  to  adr 
mit  servants  upon  the  same  footing  with  children;  so 
neither  are  we  obliged  to  admit  baptized  children  to  all 
the  privileges  of  the  gospel  church.  None  are  entitled 
to  all  the  privileges  of  the  church,  but  complete  mem- 
bers ;  but  as  I  have  already  shewn,  and  even  as  your  own 
practice  purports,  something  more  than  mere  baptism  is 
necessary  to  complete  membership. 

But  "■  the  law  of  the  passover,"  you  say,  "  makes  no 
distinction  between  infants  and  adults."  From  this.  Sir, 
I  must  certainly  take  leave  to  dissent.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear, that  infants  were  required  to  eat  the  passover  ;  anc}, 
from  the  very  nature  of  the -case,  it  is  evident  they  were 
not. 

After  careful  attention  to  the  subject,  I  am  clearly  of 
the  opinion,  that  circumcised  chiidren'were  not  required 
to  eat  the  passover,  until  they  had  attained  to  years  of 
•cmderstanding,  and  personally  consented  to  the  covenant. 
And  in  this  opinion,  I  am  supported  by  eminevit  divines, 
among  whom  are  Witsius,   Doddridge,  and  Stackhouse. 

Infants  may  be  the  subjects  of  the  renewing  of  the  Ho- 
li4  Ghost ^  and  sprinkling  of  the  blsod  of  Christy  signified 
by  baptism  ;  but  they  cannot  discern  the  Lord\s  body,  and 
commemorate  his  deaths  in  the  holy  supper.  This  single 
obvious  remark  I  deerri  a  sufficient  answer  to  all  which 
you  have  said,  and  to  all  which  "  the  Rev.  James  Pierce 

*  See  Letter,  XV. 


402  LETTER.    XX. 

of  Exoiis"  has  said,  oij  the  subject  of  infant  communion, 
at  the  Lord's  table. 

Yours,  dear  Sir,  Stc 


LETTER  XX. 

liEF.isr'  DEAR  Sm, 

IN  my  Two  Discourses,  after  a  general  survev'cf  the 
covenant,  its  perpetuity  and  provision,  its  privileges  and 
duties,  I  had  occasion  to  present  the  tollowingstatsment ; 

**  As  we  have  sufficient  evidence,  that  it  was  the  prac- 
tice  of  the  apostles,  pursuant  to  the  tenor  of  God's  gra- 
cious covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  to  baptize 
the  households  of  believing  parents ;  so  we  have  the  tes- 
timony of  the  earliest  of  the  Christian  fathers,  that  this 
was  the  universal  practice  of  the  church,  in  the  ages  im- 
mediately succeeding  the  apostles. — For  more  than  three 
thousand  years,  the  seal  of  the  covenant  was  universally 
applied  to  the  children  of  the  church,  no  one  forbid* 
ding  it." 

In  support  of  this  statement,  I  subjoined  a  note,  pre- 
senting a  summary  view  of  the  testimony  of  the  primi- 
tive fathers,  in  which  it  was  cleai'lv  shewn,  that  during  the 
first  century,  and  several  succeding  ages,  Infant  Baptism 
v/as  practised  in  the  church,  universally,  and  withoiit 
contradiction,  or  question,  as  to  its  being  pf  divine  in- 
stitution. 

This  point  is  so  clear,  and  so  amply  supported,  that 
you  have  neither  ventui'ed  to  denv,  nor  attempted  to  dis- 
prove it ;  but  I  am  sorry  to  have  occasion  to  say,  that, 
imitating  too  closely  a  common  practice  with  those,  Avho 
have  a  bad  cause  to  support,  what  you  perceived  you 
could  not  answer,  you  have  atteinpted  to  ridicule. 

You  would  have  it,  indeed,  that  '■'there  is  an  ingenious 
obscurity  in  my  manner  of  quoting  the  ancient  fathers,''' 
and  that  ''an  incautious  reader  might  suppose,  tiiat  they 
all  lived  in,  or  near,  the  first  centui'v,  whereas  the  fact  is 
they  extended  through  four  cr  five." — Tertullian,  as 
I  stated,  was  about  eleven  years  old  when  Polycarv 
died.      "Put  how  are  we  ^o  know^"  you  shrewdly  ask^ 


LETTER    XX.  103 

"when  Polycarp  died?" — I  had  just  before  informed 
you,  Sir,  that  Polycarp  was  the  bishop,  or  anf>el,  of  the 
church  of  Smyrna,  to  whom  St.  John,  in  the  Revelation^ 
acklrtssed  his  epistle.  From  this  I  supposed  it  notvery 
difficult  to  conclude,  that  his  death  could  not  have  been  a 
great  many  years  after  the  death  of  that  apostle;  and, 
therefore,  that  Tertullian  must  have  been  sufficiently  near 
to  the  apostolic  age,  to  be  a  competent  witness  to  what 
was  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church. 

Again,  Cyprian,  I  observed,  suffered  martyrdom  for 
the  christian  faith,  only  about  five  vears  after  the  death  of 
Origen.  '' Ah,  indeed,"  you  exclaim,  "  it  is  presumed 
that  every  body  knowswhen  Origen  died!" — I  had  irr- 
formed  you.  Sir,  that  Origen  was  contemporary  with 
Tertullian ;  that  Tertullian  was  only  eleven  years  old 
when  Polycarp  died,  and  was  many  years  contemporary 
with  Irenceus,  a  disciple  of  Polycarp  ;  and  that  Polycarp 
was  the  angel  of  the  church  of  Smyrna,  to  whom  John 
the  Revelator  addressed  his  epistle.  Is  there  any  ''  ob- 
scurity," Sir,  in  all  this  ?  Is  it  not  perfectly  clear  ?  Is  it  not 
plain  to  the  'owest  capacity,  that  there  is  a  connected 
chain  of  testiix.ony,  from  the  da\'s  of  the  apostles  to  the 
latest  of  the  fathers  whom  I  quoted  ?  Bid  you  not.  Sir, 
see  it  to  be  too  plain  to  be  fairly  withstood,  and,  there- 
fore, choose  your  measures  accordingly? 

No,  Sir  J  it  is  not  "  absolutely  incredible,"  it  is  not 
fven  very  wonderful,  that  "a  country  bishop  by  the 
name  of  Fidus"  should  have  a  question,  whether  it  wer^ 
not  most  proper  '*  to  defer  the  baptism  of  infants  until  the 
eighth  day."  But  ^Mf  it  had"  not  "been  the  constant 
practice  of  the  christiaa  church,  from  the  first  institution 
of  baptism,  to  baptize  infants  ;"  woi.ild  it  not  have  been 
wonderful  indeed,  would  it  not  have  been  "  absolutely 
incredible,"  that  in  a  council  consisting  of  sixty  six  bish- 
ops, only  about  150  years  after  the  apostles,  such  a  ques- 
tion as  Fidus  proposed  should  have  been  unanimously 
answered,  without  the  least  question,  or  doubt,  whether 
Infant  Baptism  were  of  divine  institution  ? 

Whatever  might  have  been  the  peculiar  sentiments  of 
Origen,  or  of  Gregory,  they  were  unquestionablv  compe- 
tent witnesses  to  a  well  known  matter  of  fact  j  and  their 
testimony  is  not  to  be  set  aside  by  any  such  suggestion^ 
as  you  are  pleased  to  throw  out. 

On  the  whole,  Sir,  had  you  passed  overmy  note,  cr. 


i(j4>  iETTER    XX. 

{he  testimony  of  the  primitive  fathers,  in  total  silence,  it 
ivould  not  have  been  so  manifest,  as  it  now  is,  that  you 
felt  its  force,  and  perceived  that  it  could  not  be  invali= 
dated; 

But  though  yoi:  have  not  ventured  to  deny,  or  attempt  =• 
ed  to  disprove,  what  I  stated  on  the  subject  of  primitive 
practice  j  your  friend  and  brother,  ]\Ir.  Merrill,  who  is 
So  very  unhappy  as  not  to  didtinguish  between  argument 
and  assertion,  between  fact  and  mere  figment,  nor  be-- 
tween  truth  and  falsehood,  has  been  more  adventurous. 
In  his  own  manner,  he  has  undertaken  tO  assert,  that,  in 
niy  staternent,  '^'  there  is  not  so  much  as  a  shadow  of 
truth  !"  that  in  my  note,  *'  the  spirit  of  Antichrist  appears 
to  have  done  its  utmost  in  spreading,  perhaps,  the  last 
blind  over  the  minds  of  God's  people  !"  and  that  "a  great- 
er stretch  of  misrepresentation  and  groundless  assertion 
perhaps  never  escaped  the  pen  of  man!"* — ^Now  all  this'; 
Sir,  no  doubt,  was  ifttended  to  be  very  terrible  ;  but  for 
some  reason  or  other,  it  does  not  disturb  me  at  all.  I 
pity  the  man,  who  can  write  at  this  rate. 

"  A  Volume  of  testimonies,"  Mr.  M.  afHrms,  "indi- 
rect  c;ontradiction  to  what  he,  (Mr*  Worcester)  asserts, 
might  be  easily  produced." — But  what  are  the  testimo- 
nies, which  he  thinks  proper  to  select  ? 

The  first  thing,  which  he  adduces,  is  to  this  effect ; 
that  "  St.  or  rather  Sinful  Austin,"  (it  is  his  own  phrase) 
*'inthe  year  595  came  into  England,  with  about  fort}-  of 
his  papistical  associates,"  (this,  again,  is  his  own  phrase) 
and  required,  that  the  British  christians  should  embrace 
the  ceremonies  of  the  church  of  Rome,  pai'ticularly  in  the 
time  of  keeping  Easter,  and  in  baptizing  their  children." 
From  this  Mr.  Merrill  concludes,  that,  before  that  time^ 
Infant  Baptism  had  not  been  practised  in  the  "British 
church."! 

More  than  a  hun.dred  years  iigo,  this  same  thing  wa^ 
alledged  by  an  English  antipedobaptist  by  the  name  of 
Danvers,  and  it  was  afterwards  conclusively  answered 
by  Dr.  Wall.  The  simple  truth  appears  to  be  this ; 
Bede,  who,  in  the  year  T'Sl,  wrote  the  church  history  of 
the  British  nation,  related,  that  when  Austin  came  into 
England,  finding  that  the  Britons  held  to  some  rites  and 
traditions,  peculiar  to  themselves,  made  a  proposal  to 

*  Letters  occasioned  8;c.  p,  56.         t  i^^id.  p.  p.  51.  52. 


LETTER  XX.  IQS 

them,  in  which,  among  other  things,  he  required,  that 
they  should  "keep  Easter  at  the  right  time,  and  perform 
the  office  of  baptizing,  according  to  the  cmtom  of  the  Ro- 
wan and  apostolic  church.''^*  In  one  edition  of  Fabian's 
Chronicle,  written  about  the  year  1500,  the  account  of 
this  matter,  taken  from  Bede,  agrees  with  the  account 
which  Bede  himself  had  given.  "Then  he  (Austin) 
sayed  to  them,"  says  Fabian,  "Assent  ye  to  me  especial- 
ly in  thre  thyngs.  The  first  is,  that  ye  kepe  Esterdav  in. 
due  fourme  and  tyme,  as  it  is  ordeyned.  The  second, 
that  ye  give  Christendom  to  the  children  in  the  jnanner 
that  is  used  271  the  chyrche  of  Roh-'f.  And  the  thyrd, 
that  ye  preche  unto  the  Anglis  the  word  of  God."  But 
in  another  edition  of  this  same  Chronicle,  the  words — 
*'f;2  the  manner  that  is  used  in  the  chyrche  of  Rome''''— -?ixe. 
omitted  ;  and  the  proposal  Stands  thus,  That  ye  give 
Christendom  to  the  children.^ 

This  incorrect  statement,  in  the  last  miefitioned  edition 
of  Fabian's  Chronicle,  has  been  eagerly  seized  by  the 
Ahtipedopaptists  as  a  proof,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  not 
practised  in  the  primitive  British  church ;  and  is  now 
brought  forward  anew,  by  Mr.  Mcr\;ill,  as  a  conspicuous 
part  pf  his  "  volume  of  testimonies,  in  direct  contradic- 
tion" to  mv  statements. 

But  the  account,  as  originally  given  by  Bede,  and  as 
given  in  the  more  correct  edition  of  Fabian,  affords  no- 
thing in  vour  fa:-'vOur.  It  waT  not  that  the  Britons  should 
baptize  their  children,  (for  this  they  had  been  in  the  prac- 
tice of  doing  before,)  but  that  they  should  baptize  them 
^^according  to  the  custom  of  the  apostolic  church ^''^  \\vkt 
Austin  proposed.  And  it  is  particularly  to  be  remem- 
bered, that  this  same  Austin,  as  well  as  Pelagius,  who 
was  born  in  Britain,  expressly  testifies,  that  he  "never 
read  or  heard  of  any  Christian,  either  catholic  or  secta:- 
ry,  who  denied  Infant  Baptism."  So  clear  it  is,  that  the 
primitive  British  church,  as  well  as  all  other  churches 
in  tTie  primitive  ages,  uniformly  practised  the  baptism  of 
their  children. 

Mr.  Merrill  next  brings  forward  Salmasius  and  Sui- 
cerus,  as  saying,  that  "in  the  two   first  centuries,  no  one 

*  Bedofc  Ecci.  Hist.  L.  2.  c.  2. — This  was  before  the  church  cf 
Rome  became  papistical. 
t  Wall's  Hist.  In.  Bap.  B.  II.  Chap.  4. 
Let  O. 


106  LXTTER   XX.- 

was  baptized,  except  being  instructed  in  the  faith,  and 
acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he  was  able  to 
profess  himself  a  believer."  And  "Johannes  Bohemi- 
us,"  he  observes,  "as  quoted  by  Mr.  Andrews,  says,  *It 
was  in  time  past  the  custom,  to  administer  baptism  to 
them  that  were  instructed  in  the  faith,'  &c. 

These  testimonies,  again,  are  noticed,  and  answered 
by  Dr%  Wall.^  Suicerus,  it  appears,  quoted'  from  Sal- 
masius  ;  and  as  for  Bohemius,  he  was  one  of  those  "au- 
thors who  o»ly  serve,"  says  the  Dr.  "to  fill  up  a  crowd 
of  names,  and  to  put  an  abuse  upon  a  pliain  honest  reader  1" 
Have  we  any  such,  Sir,  at  the  present  day  ? 

At  most,  these  ai*e  only  the  assertions  of  modern  wri- 
ters, are  entirely  unsupported  by  any  proofs  frorn^  anti- 
quity, and  are  directly  contradictory  to  the  full  and 
explicit  testimony  of  the  primitive  fathers  of  the  church. 
Mr.  Merrill,  indeed,  himself  undertakes  to  assert,  that 
Infant  Baptism  was  not  practised  in  the  primitive  church. 
But  of  what  avail  is  his  assertion,  unless  supportecjl 
by  substantial  proof?  when  Austin  and  PeLigius,  who 
flourished  only  about  three  hundred  year-s  after  the 
apostles,  and  who  were  men  of  great  reading  and  ex- 
tensive travel,  both  aver,  that  they  "never  read  or  heard 
of  any  who  denied  Infant  Baptism  ;"  and  their  testi- 
mony is  confirmed  by  a  cloud  of  witnesses  of  the  pri- 
mitive ages.  Of  as  little  avail  is-  the  unsupported  as- 
sertion of  Salmasius,  and  Bohemius,  and  a  hundred  mo- 
dern writers. 

It  is  important,  Sir,  to  be  well  consfdered,  that,  for 
facts  of  ancient  date,  we  are  not  to  rely  on  the  unsup- 
ported authority  of  modern  names.  Let  Mr.  Merrill, 
let  any  other  person,  adduce  the  testimony  of  any  of  the 
primitive  fathers,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  not  in  use  in 
the  primitive  church,  and  I  pledge  myself  to  give  it  the 
most  serious  and  candid  attention.  But  such  testimony,. 
Sir,  has  never  been  adduced,  and,  I  am  confident,  never 
can  be. 

Mr.  M.  after  many  other  antipedopaptist  writers,  has 
thought  proper  to  bring  forward  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  Jerome,  and  Austin,  as  instan- 
ces of  persons  born  of  Christian  parents,  yet  not  baptized 
in  infancy ;  and  thence, concludes  that  their  parents  were 

*  Wall's  Hist.  In.  Bap.  B.  II.  Chap., 2. 


tETTER  XX. 


iof 


antipedobaptists.  Alas  !  to  what  mere  shadows  will  a 
man  not  resort,  when  he  has  no  solid  arguments  of  which 
tq  avail  himself.  Of  Gregory,  it  is  not  certain  whether 
his  father  were  a  heathen,  at  the  time  he  was  born,  or 
not ;  or  what  was  the  reason  why  he  was  not  baptized. 
With  respect  to  Jerome,  there  is  no  evidence,  that  he  was 
hot  baptized  in  his  infancy.  But  as  to  Ambrose,  Chry- 
sostom,  and  Austin,  their  parents,  so  far  as  appears, 
were  heathen,  at  the  time  they  were  born,  and  for  many 
years  afterwards.*"  A  sufficient  reason  this,  why  they 
were  not  baptized  in  infancy,  but  no  proof  that  their  pa- 
rents were  antipedobaptists.  Is  it  not,  Sir,  a  little  re- 
markable, that  Mr.  M.  should  attempt  to  make  his  rea- 
ders believe  that  Austin's  father  was  an  antipedobaptist  ? 
when  Austin  himself  declares,  that  he  never  heard  of 
any  christian  who  denied,  "  that  infants  were  to  be  bap- 
tized for  the  remission  of  sins." 

When  I  published  my  Two  Discourses,  I  thought  it 
very  doubtful,  whether  even  the  Petrobrusians  denied 
Infant  Baptism.  Dr.  Wall,  I  know,  supposed  it  proba- 
ble that  they  did  ;  but  Perin,  the  historian  of  the  Wal- 
denses,  believed  that  they  did  not.  I,  therefore,  thought 
myself  warranted  to  state,  that  it  was  not  until  txvehe  or 
fifteen  hundred  years  after  Christ,  that  any  forbade  the 
seal  of  the  covenant  to  the  infant  seed  of  the  church. 
And  whether  the  Petrobrusians,  who  did  not  flourish  un- 
til about  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  denied  In- 
fant Baptism,  or  not,  Mr.  M,  ci^tes  them  in  vain,  to  dis- 
prove my  general  statement. 

But  "  if  no  one  forbade  the  baptism  of  new  born  in- 
fants, how  came  it  to  pass,"  says  Mr,  Merrill,  "  that  Au- 
gustine, in  the  fourth  century,  warned  his  readers  and 
;hearers  to  beware  of  the  baptists  and  the  antipedobaptists 
of  his  day."  Let  Mr.  M.  Sir,  shew  that  such  was  the 
fact,  and  I  will  answer  his  question  as  well  a,s  I  can  ;  but 
this  he  cannot  shew.  Strabo  did  not  "fordid"  Infant 
Baptism,  nor  produce  any  proof,  that  it  had  ever  been 
y  forbidden,"  neither  did  the  council  of  Carthage. 

Thus,  Sir,  I  have  considered  Mr.  Merrill's  "  volume 
of  testimonies,"  and  feel  no  reluctance  to  submit  the 
whole  to  the  judgment  of  a  discerni  i-or  r-biic.  Not  con- 
tent, however,  with  nierely  exhibiting   his  own  testimo- 


f  WaU's  Hist.  In.  Bap.  P.  II.  C.  iii. 


10^  t«:TTER    XX. 

nies,  Mr.  M.  undertJtkes  to  invalidate  the  testimonies  of 
the  primitive  fathers,  by  which  my  positions  were  supr 
ported ;  and  it  is  not  a  little  amusing  to  observe  with 
what  dexterity  he  proceeds  in  his  purpose. 

"In  the  writings  of  the  first  century,  we  haye  the  best  evr 
idence,"  he  says,  "  which  the  cirsumstances  of  the  case 
admit,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  then  unknown."— What 
is  this  evidence  ?  Merely  to  this  effect,  that  of  adults^ 
previous  to  their  being  baptized,  a  profession  was  requir- 
ed of  repentance  and  faith  I — -This,  Sir,  no  one  disputes  ; 
but  what  is  this  to  the  point?  Do  not  we,  of  the  pcdo- 
baptist  faith,  still  continue  in  the  apostolic  practise.  Do 
not  we  require  of  unbaptizeda^/i^/^^,  previous  to  their  be- 
ing baptized,  a  profession  of  repentence  and  faith?  But 
does  this  prove,  that  we  do  not,  according  to  the  divine 
institution,  also  practise  Infant  Baptism  ?  How  long.  Sir, 
shall  we  be  obliged  to  answer,  over  and  over  again,  this 
impertinent  argument?^ 

"  This  council,"  says  Mr.  Merrill,  "  composed  of  Af- 
rican bishops"  (sixty  six,  with  the  Martyr  Cyprian  for 
their  president,)  "is  the  first  we  read  of,  which  expli- 
citlv  admitted  the  superstitious  Sind  a^itichristiati  practice 
of  infant  Baptism  !"— Let  Mr.  M.  Sir,  produce  a  coun- 
cil, composed  either  of  "^y?-fcan,"  or  European,  or  Asi- 
atic, bishops,  of  the  primitive  times,  in  which  Infant 
IBaptism  was  either  "explicitly,"  or  in;plicitly,  denied^  or 
Stigmatized,  as  a  '■^  superstitious ,  and  antichristian  prac- 
tice^'' and  we  will  confess,  that  he  has  done  something. 

But  the  curiosity  is,  that  Mr.  Merrill  should  object  to 
the  testimony  of  the  council  of  Carthage,  because  it  was 
"  composed  oi  African  bishops."     Perhaps  he  supposed, 

♦  Imfiertincnt  arg.umerj.  If  there  be  an  apparent  harshness 
in  this  expression,  it  will  find,  I.trust,  an  apology  in  the  sub- 
ject, to  which  it  applies.  The  argument,  herein  question,  is  the 
Verv  same  with  that,  which  is  pretendedly  brought  frond  the 
sacred  history.  In  its  simple  form,  it  is  no  more,  nor  less,  than 
this  :  '  It  was  required  of  adults,  who  had  never  received  bap- 
tism, that  they  should  rejisnt^  or  believe,  and  be  baptized  ;  there- 
fore^ mfants  -were  not  to  be  baptized  1'  Now,  I  ask  candidly, 
■whether  a  weaker,  more  illogical,  or  more  impertinent,  argu- 
jntnt,  was  ever  employed  for  the  support  of  any  serious  cau^e  ? 
Yet  this  is  the  argument,  on  which  antipedobap'tism  depends  for 
its  principal  support ;  and  though  it  has  been  a  thousand  times 
exploded,  it  is  still  urged,  with  as  much  assurance  as  if  it  had 
the  greatest  solidity, 


LETTER   XX.  i09 

that,  because  they  lived  in  Africa,  they  must  certainly 
have  beeu  black ;  and,  therefore,  could  have  no  know- 
ledge of  divine  institutions,  or  of  the  practice  of  the 
christian  church.  At  any  rate,  I  can  see  no  other,  or 
better,  reason  tor  his  objecting  to  their  testiniony.-— 
Throughout  his  book,  however,  Mr,  Merrill  represents 
Infant  Baptism,  as  a  doctrine  of  the  church  of  Rome.— 
Does  he  suppose,  that  Rome  was  in  Africa? 

In  replv  to  the  direct  testimony  of  Austin  and  Pelar 
gius,  that  Infant  Baptism  was  in  their  day,  and  had  been 
from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  the  universal  practice  of 
the  christian  church,  Mr.  Merrill  appears  to  have  put 
forth  his  whole  strength.  With  respect  to  Pelagius  he 
says : 

"  1.  The  whole  of  this,  so  far  as  it  has  any  formidablcr 
^ess,  may  be  a  forgery  /" — So  then,  it  is  only  for  Mr* 
Merrill  to  sav  of  a  piece  of  ancient  writing,  "  It  viaij  be 
a  forgery r  and  we  must  all  consider  it  "  a  forgery,"  and 
set  it  down  for  nought !  ^ 

"  2.  It  is  but  the  assertion  of  one  man  /'WWe  never 
supposed,  Sir,  that  Pelagius  was  more  than  one  man. 
But  unfortunately  for  Mr.  M.  and  for  the  antipedobap- 
tist  cause,  the  testimony  of  this  one  man  is  amply  sup- 
ported by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  many  others. 

"  3.  This  one  man  does  not  assert,  that  there  is  none 
who  denies  Infant  Baptism ;  but  that  he  has  heard  of 
none  !"•— We  must  conclude,  then,  that  Pelagius  was  aa 
honest  and  prudent  man  ;  so  far,  at  least,  as  not  to  assert 
further  than  he  knew,  or  could  prove.  But  this,  it  ap- 
pears, Mr.  Merrill  considers  a  great  disparagement  of 
^is  testimony  * 

"  4.  Tlje  visible  church  of  Christ  was,  at  this  tijne, 
hidden  in  the  place,  which  God  had  prepared  for  her ; 
and  little  or  nothing  was  now  seen,  or  heard,  of  the  true 
gospel  church,  in  svhat  was  called  the  Christian  world ; 
but  the  church  of  Antichrist*^  (that  is  the  church  which 
held  to  Infant  Baptism)  ''was  in  high  repute  i" — So  then, 
in  about  three  hundred  years  after  the  apostles,  the  true 
church  of  God  v/as  so  far  lost,  or  hidden,  from  the  world, 
that  neither  the  learned  Pelagius,  nor  Austin,  ever  knew, 
or  heard  any  thing  about  it ! — But  about  this  same  church 
and  its  primitive  state  and  practice,  Mr.  Merrill,  who 
Nourishes  fourteen  hundred  years  after  them,  is  perfectly- 
well  informed  ! 


lllS  XIITTER    XX. 

*'As  it  what  Austin  saj's,"  continues  Mr.  M.  *^ Infant 
Saptisvi  the  -whole  church  practises  ;  it  xvas  not  instituted 
by  councils^  but  was  ever  in  use,  we  answer — 

"1.  That  he  had  respect  to  the  church  o^  Antichrist^ 
which  alone  was  in  reputation  in  his  day." — The  church 
of  Antichrist,  to  be  sure,  because  it  held  to  Infant  Bap- 
tism. But  that  no. other  church  "was  in  reputation"  in 
the  primitive  times,  but  that  which  held  to  Infant  Bap* 
tism,  we  readily  admit. 

*'  2.  As  to  Austin's  saying,  *Infant  Baptism  was  ever 
«rt  ws-e,' we  NEED  only  observe,  if  Austin  thus  said,  he 
made  a  large  mistake  ! !" — Yes,  Sir,  we  must,  doubtless, 
admit,  that  Austin,  who  lived  within  three  hundred  years 
of  the  apostles,  "  made  a  large  mistake,"  about  the  pri- 
mitive practice  of  the  church ;  for  Mr.  Merrill,  who 
lives  only  about  fourteen  hundred  years  later,  says,  thathe 
did ;  and  this  is  all  which  ^'- needed'^  to  be  done,  in  order 
to  put  the  matter  beyond  all  question  ! 

Svich,  Sir,  is  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Merrill  can 
dispose  of  the  most  positive,  and  well  authenticated,  tes- 
timony of  the  primitive  fathers.  As  we  must,  in  charity, 
consider  him  an  honest,  and  well  meaning  man,  who 
would  not,  for  the  world,  designedly  impose  upon  the 
public  ;  we  must  certainly  conclude,  that  he  really  sup- 
posed his  remarks  to  be  neither  false,  nor  ignorant,  nor 
impertinent,  nor  vam,  nor  puerile ;  but  such  as  ought 
without  fail,  to  convince,  and  edify,  every  reasonable  be- 
ing. Such,  also,  they  are  doubtless  supposed  to  be,  by 
his  antipedobaptist  admirers;  among  whon»,  as  you  have 
Ijiven  us  to  understand,  you  are  not  unwilling  yourself  to 
be  numbered.  And  for  myself,  Sir,  I  should  deem  it  a 
Taost  ungenerous  aud  felonious  thing  indeed,  for  any  one 
to  attempt  to  detract  from  any  of  Mr.  Merrill's  writings 
,  the  smallest  particle  of  real  merit. 

It  is  however,  no  small  satisfaction  to  me,  that  my 
■statements,  with  respect  to  the  primitive  practice  of  the 
church,  not  only  have  not,  either  by  yourself,  or  Mr. 
Merrill,  baen  shewn  to  be,  in  the  least  point,  incor- 
rect ;  but  by  Dr.  Reed,  in  his  late  excellent  work,  and 
hv  others,  have  been  abundantly  supported  and  confirm- 
ed. My  statements,  most  certainly,  were  not  made  at 
random,  but  were  the  result  of  deliberate  and  diligent 
research ;  and  on  a  deliberate  and  diligent  review  of  the 


tETTER  XXr.  Slf 

subject,  I  am  more  and  more  settled  in  the  persuasion  aC 
their  substantial  correctness. 

With  due  respect,  I  am,  8cc, 


LETTER  XXr. 

MEKkP"  DEAR  SIR, 

AS  it  was  not  the  design  of  my  Two  Discourses-, 
so  neither  does  it  fall  within  the  plan  of  these  Letters,  to 
exhibit,  at  large,  the  evidences  of  Infant  Baptism.  God^?. 
everlasting  covenant  with  his  church  is  my  subject;  and 
jiipon  this  subject  I  have  prescribed  to  myself  principally 
to  dwell.  But  as  Infant  Baptism  is  intimately  connected 
with  the  covenant,  I  have  been  unavoidably  led  to  givf^ 
it  some  attention  ;  and  shall,  in  this  Letter,  take  leave  to 
present,,  in  one  connected,  but  very  compendious,  view, 
the  grounds  on  which  it  rests. 

I.  In  God's  covenant  with  his  church,  children  are 
cxpressly  connected  with  their  parents  ;  and  on  the 
ground  of  this  connexion,  it  has  been  divinely  instituted^ 
that  parents  should  have  the  initiating  seal  administered 
to  their  infant  seed. 

Hence,  as  God's  everlasting  covenant  is  still  in  force, 
and  as  his  special  institution,  respecting  the  infant  seed 
of  the  church,  has  never  been  annulled  ;  it  is  clearly  a 
duty,  as  solemnly  binding  on  parents  now,  as  anciently 
it  was,  believingly  to  devote  their  offspring  to  God,  and 
bbedientlv  to  have  his  appointed  seal  put  upon  them.— 
This  argument,  or  rather  this  great  and  practical  truth» 
which  I  have  had  occasion  to  illustrate  more  at  large  in 
my  Two  Discouises,  and  some  preceding  Letters,*  is 
certainly,  in  my  view,  too  plain  and  too  important,  to  be 
treated  with  lightness.. 

II.  Not  only  is  there  no  intimation,  in  the  scriptures- 
that  the  covenant  connexion  between  parents  and  chil- 
dren, has  been  dissolved  ;  but  we  are  very  clearly  taught 

•  See,  particularly.  Letter  XYII. 


11»  LETTER   XJfr. 

that  this  Important  connexion  was  to  continue,  under  the 
present  dispensation. 

In  a  memorable  prophecy  of  Gospel  days,  Jehovah 
was  graciously  pleased  to  say,  respecting  his  covenant 
people,  Their  children  also  shall  be  as  aforetime,  ayid 
their  congregatio?i  shall  be  established  before  me.''^  Afore- 
time^ undeniably,  the  children  of  God's  people  were  con- 
'  nected  in  his  covenant  with  their  parents  ;  and  were  dis- 
tinguished by  the  sacred  token  and  seal,  which  he  v»^as 
graciously  pleased  to  appoint  for  the  purpose.  But  here 
we  are  expressly  assured,  that  under  the  Gospel  dispen- 
sation,   THEIR    CHILDREN    SHALL  BE  AS  AFORETIME i. 

Now,  Sir,  give  me  leave  to  ask,  do  not  your  antipaedo- 
baptist  principles  and  practice,  which  utterly  exclude 
children  from  all  relation  to  the  covenant,  and  its  sacred 
seal,  go  directly  in  the  face  of  this  gracious  and  explicit 
declaration  of  God  ? 

sAs  the  children  of  God's  people  are  to  be  now  as  cc- 
Jonelime;  so  it  is  particularly  to  be  observed,  that  in  this~ 
way,  their  congregation^  or  church,f  is  to  be  establishfd. 
Accordingly  It  is  further  said,  Thet)  shall  nat  labour  in 
vain^  nor  bring  forth  for  trouble  ;  for  theij  are  the  seed 
of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord,  and  their  offsprijig  -with  them. 
Jbid  I -will  give  thein  one  heart  and  one  xvaij,  that  they 
may  fear  ?ne  forever,  for  the  good  of  them,  and 
OF  THEIR  CHILDREN  AFTER  THEM. J  These  again 
are,  unquestionably,  prophecies  and  promises,  respect- 
ing Gospel  days  ;  and  the  obvious  import  of  them  is, 
that  the  covenant  connexion  of  children  with  thcirparents 
was  to  remain  as  aforetime  ;  and  that,  in  the  way  of  this 
connexion,  the  church  was  to  be  continued,  and^'^stablish- 
edj  to  the  latest  generations. 

Agreeably  to  this,  John,  the  harbinger  of  the  Messiah, 
was  especially  commissioned  to  turn  the  heart  of  the  fa- 
thers to  the  childreu,  and  the  heart  of  the  children,  to  their 
JatherSy  as  the  grand  and  appointed  way  to  make  ready  a 
people  prepared  for  the  Lord^  under  his  new  dispensation, 
then  to  be  introduced. § 

*  Jer.ixx.  20. 

t  The  Hebrew  word,  in  the  Old  Testament,  rendered  conqre- 
^ation^  is  of  the  same  signification  with  the  Greek  word,  in  the 
New  Testament,  which  is  rendered  church. 

\  Isa.  Ixv.  23.     Jcr.  xxxii.  39, 

§  Mai.  iii.  6.    Luke  i.  17. 


LETTER    XXI.  Il3 

When  the  Messiah  was  come,  and  was  engaged  in  his 
public  ministry,  that  he  might  conjirm  the  projjiises  before 
given,  respecting  children,  and  repel  every  suggestion, 
that  they  were  no  longer  to  be  considered  as  having  any 
sacred  relation  to  his  covenant  and  church ;  on  a  memo- 
rable occasion,  he  solemnly  rebuked  his  disciples,  and 
said.  Suffer  little  children^  and  Jo r hid  them  not  to  come 
nnto  me:  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.* 
We  do  not  suppose,  that  the  little  children  were  brought 
to  Christ  for  baptism  ;  for  Christian  baptism,  as  a  seal  of 
the  covenant  in  the  place  of  circumcision,  had  not  then 
been  instituted,  nor  was  it,  until  after  Christ's  resurrec- 
tion. But  we  say,  that  Christ  explicitly  recognized  the 
relation  of  the  little  children  of  his  people  to  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  or  to  the  church  under  the  gospel  dispensation. 
And  I  ask  you,  Sir,  if  the  infant  seed  of  believers,  under 
the  present  dispensation,  have  no  connexion  with  the 
church  ;  what  did  the  Saviour  mean,  when  he  so  expli- 
citly declared,  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  f\ 

This  relation  of  children,  thus  recognized  by  Christ, 
was  solemnly  adverted  to,  and  insisted  on,  by  the  apostle 
Peter,  on  the  illustrious  day  of  Pe^jtecost.  For^  says 
he,  the  promise  is  to  y 021^  and  Ta  your  children,  and 
<  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  eve?i  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  call.X 

Upon  this  same  relation,  the  apostle  Paul,  also,  re- 
peatedly insists.  If  the  first  fruity  says  he,  be  holy^  the 
lump  is  also  holy;  arid  if  the  root  be  holy-,  so  are  the 
branches.^  In  this  he  has  primary  reference  to  Abraham 
and  his  natural  descendants ;  but  he  applies  the  princi- 
ple to  gospel  days.  And  in  perfect  coincidence  with 
this,  he  further  says,  The  unbelieving  husband  is  sancti- 
fied by  the  wife^  and  the  unbelieving  xuife  is  sanctified  by 
the  husband;  else  were  your  children  unclean, 
EUT  NOW  ARE  THEY  HOLY.J!  We  kflow  that  by  holiness 
here  cannot  be  intended  real,  positive,  internal  holiness  ; 
for  Abraham  did  not  communicate  this,  either  to  his 
natural  descendants,  or  to  his  spiritual  children  ;  nor 
can  any  parent,  to  whatever  degree  his  faith  is  increased, 
communicate  grace  to  his  children.     But   by  virtue  of 

*  Mat.  xix,  14.     Mark  x.  14.     Luke  xviii.  16. 

t  Those,  of  whom  he  thus  spoke,  were  certainly  infants  in  a^f. 

i  Acts  ii,  39.  §  Rom.  xi.  16.  1!  1  Co;-,  vii.  14, 

Let.  P, 


114.  LETTER   XXf. 

their  relation  to  Abraham,  his  descendants  were  con-' 
sidered  as  being,  in  a  federal,  or  covenant,  sense,  holy, 
and  were  entitled  to  the  sacred  sign  of  relationship  tb 
God  and  his  church.  And  by  virtue  of  a  similar  rela- 
tion to  their  parents,  the  children  of  God's  people,  under 
the  present  dispensation,  are  to  be  considered  as  holy^  in 
the  same  federal,  or  covenant,  sense,  and  as  having  the 
same  right  to  the  sacred  sign  and  seal.  Less  than  this 
the  Apostle  cannot  mean,  when  he  speaks  of  branches 
being  hely^  be<:ause  of  their  connexion  with  a  holy  root  ; 
oi  children  being  holy^  because  of  their  relation  to  sancti- 
Jied  parents.'^ 

This  covenant  connexion  of  children  with  their  pa- 
rents', in  the  church  of  God.  is  also  clearlv  implied  by  the 
Apostle,  when  he  assures  us.  that  the  believing  Gentiles 
are  ingrafted  into  the  sa?ne  olive  tree,  from  which  the  un- 
believing Jews  were  broken  off";  and  are  made  fclloxv- 
heirs^  and  of  the  same  body,  and  partakers  of  his  pro- 
mise  i?i  Christ  by  the  gospel.  For  if  believing  Gentiles 
are  ingrafted  into  the  sa77ie  stocky  and  made  felloxv-heirs^ 
and  of  the  same  body,  wiih  God's  ancient  people  ;  then 
their  children,  it  is  clear,  must  be  as  aforetime^  having 
the  same  relation  to  the  church,  and  entitled  to  equal 
privileges. 

Indeed,  throughout  the  New  Testament,  as  well  as  the 
old,  the  holy  relation  of  children  to  the  church,  and  con- 
sequently their  right  to  the  sacred  sign  and  seal,  arc 
clearly  recognized,  and  holden  in  view,  as  the  ground 
of  correspondent  duty  and  hope. 

III.  As  we  are  clearly  informed,  that  the  relation  of 
children  to  the  church  was  to  continue  under  the  present 
dispensation,  so  we  have  evidence  sufficiently  clear,  that, 
by  the  apostles,  children  were  baptized. 

Christ's  commission  to  his  apostles  was.  Go.,  and  teach, 
or  disciple,  all  natio7is^  baptizing  thefit  in  the  na7ne  of  the 
Father^  afid  of  the  Son,  a7id  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching 


*  To  pretend,  that  the  terms,  unclean,  and  hohjy  in  the  pas- 
sage here  referred  to,  mean  illegitimate  and  legitimate,  is  but  a 
poor  evasion.  "  The  terms  ( akatbartos )  unclean,  and  (hagios} 
holy  occur  almost  numberless  times  in  the  Seve7iii/,  and  in  the 
Kew  Testament ;  but  I  do  not  find,  that  they  are  ever  once  used 
to  signify  illtgiti/iiate  and  legitiinate,  which  is  the  sense  that 
some  would  hei*e  put  upon  them."    Guise  on  the  place. 


•  LETTER   XXI.  115 

them  ts  observe  all  thivgs^  zvhatsoever  I  have  commanded 

yoii. 

With  evident  reference  to  baptism,  as  a  sacred  rite, 
.significant  of  the  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit,  and 
the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ;  it  was  prophetical- 
ly said  of  the  Messiah,  *S'(9  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations. 
Accordingly,  in  his  commission  to  his  apostles,  his  di- 
rection was,  that  all  nations  should  be  baptized.  Al- 
ready have  both  the  prophecy,  and  the  commission,  been 
in  part  fulfilled.  Already  have  some  o(  7na?2T/,  perhaps 
of  a//,  nations^  infants  as  v/eU  as  adults,  been  sprinkled^  or 
baptized.  And  the  glorious  day  is  at  hand,  when  not 
onlv  to  a  part,  but  even  to  the  whole,  of  all  nations^  the 
sacred  seal  will  be  applied,  and  they  will  all  be  holiness 
to  the  Lord.  But  as  children  constitute  a  part  of  every 
nation,  when  all  nations  shall  be  sprinkled,  or  baptized, 
and  the  Lord  shall  give  them  one  hearty  and  one  xvaij^  to 
fear  him  forever^  for  the  good  of  them^  and  of  their  chil" 
dren  after  them^  children,  we  may  be  sure,  will  all  be  bap- 
tized. 

From  this  part  of  their  commission,  then,  it  is  plain> 
that  the  apostles  were  authorized,  and  enjoined,  to  bap- 
tize children. 

Under  the  ancient  dispensation,  not  only  were  the 
Jewish  children  circumcised  ;  but  when  proselytes  from 
other  nations  were  admitted  to  the  church,  the  children, 
as  well  as  their  parerits,  were  always  baptized.  From 
this,  again,  it  is  plain,  that  when  the  apostles  received 
their  commission  to  baptize  all  nations,  they  must  have 
understood  it  as  extending  to  children. 

Moreover,  Christ  had  before  expressly  declared  to  the 
apostles,  that  little  children  were  to  be  considered  as 
having  still  a  sacred  relation  to  the  church ;  that  of  such, 
is  the  kingdom  ^f  heaven;  and,  therefore,  had  solemnly 
commanded  them,  to  suffer  little  children  lo  coine^  or  to 
be  brought,*  xinto  him.  This,  therefore,  they  were  to 
teach  all  nations  to  observe;  for  thev  were  to  teach  them, 
to  observe  all  things^  zvhatsoever  their  divide  Master  had 
co?!i7nanded  them. 

Accordingly  we  are  expressly  informed,  that,  in  ful- 
filnient  of  their  commission,  the  apostles  actually  bap- 
tized, not  only  believing  parents,   who  had  never  before 

*  The  little  children  zvcre  brought  tc  him. 


116  LETTER    XXI. 

Ijeen  baptized,  but  Jilso  their  households.  When  Lydia 
feelieved,  she  was  baptized,  and  her  household ;  when  the 
jailor  believed,  he  was  baptized,  and  all  hh  straightxvay; 
and  the  household  of  Stephanus^  as  well  as  himself,  were 
also  baptized. 

IV.  As  Infant  Baptism  was  practised  by  the  apostles, 
in  pursuance  of  their  commission;  so  it  appears,  from 
the  most  authentic  testimony,  that  it  was  practised  in  the 
church,  universallv,  for  many  ages  after  them. 

My  limits  avIU  not  allow  me,  neither  is  it  neces3ar}%to 
give  a  fall  recital  of  the  testimony  of  the  fathers.  But 
after  a  careful  attention  to  the  subject,  I  feel  myself  safe, 
in  stating  the  following  positions  as  correct,  and  capable 
of  substantia' proof. 

1.  In  the  first  ages  after  Christ,  baptism  2aid  regenera- 
tion were  considered  as  the  same  thing.  * 

This  is  a  position,  to  which  Dr.  Wall  has  brought  the 
inost  ample  proof ;  and  which  none,  I  believe,  who  are 
conversant  with  the  primitive  writings,  will  undertake  to 
deny. 

It  is  not  to  be  understood,  that  the  primitive  fathers 
held  to  no  other  regeneration^  than  that  by  xoater.  They, 
as  well  as  the  orthodox  moderns,  believed  in  both  an  in- 
ternal, and  external,  washing,  or  cleansing;  an  internal 
cleansing  by  the  influence  of  the  Holv  Spirit  ^  and  an  ex- 
ternal cleansing  by  the  application  of  water  j  and  the  lat- 
ter they  held  to  be  symbolical  of  the  former. '  But  the 
external  cleansing,  as  well  as  the  internal,  they  called  re- 
generation ;  and  hence  customarily  spoke  of  persons, 
ivhen  baptized  with  water,  as  being  regenerated.* 

To  this  manner  of  speaking,  they  appear  to  have  been  led, 
by  the  memorable  words  of  the  Saviour  to  Nicodemus, 
JExcept  a  man  be  born  of  xoater^  and  of  the  Spirit  ;  he  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God;  words,  on  which  they 
insisted  much,  and  of  which  they  made  abundant  use. 
By  being  born  ofxvafer,  they  understood  being  bapt^izcd 
Tvithxvater  ;  3.S  hy  he'ix)^  born  of  the  Spirit,  they  under- 
stood being  baptizedxvith  the  Spirit:  and,  therefore,  they 
applied  the  terms  regeneration,  regenerated,  and  being 
born  again,  as  well  to  the  external  cleansing  by  the  wash_ 


*  This  primitive  mode  of  speaking  the  Church  of  England  stijl 

retains. 


LETTER  XXI.  iir 

ing  of  water,  as  to  the  internal  cleansing  by  the  influences 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.    '"'  ""      •  '  '  - 

'  Quotations  from  the  fathers,  to  this  pv;rpose,  might  b^ 
adduced  without  number;  but  a  single  passage  of  the 
apostolical  Justin  Martyr,  taken  from  his  first  Apology 
to  the  emperor  A-ntotiinus  Vms,  may  suflSce.  Speaking 
oT  such  as  wfre baptized  into  the  Christian  faith,  he  savs, 
"  They' ^te regenef (if e J,  by  the  saipe  way,  by  which  vrd 
were  reg-eneratcd;  for thev  p.re rvasked 7vith  Tvater^mtht^ 
name  of  Ijo'd;  the  Father  and  Lord  of  all  things,  and  of 
pUr  Saviour  Je^^us  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  FoiJ 
Christ  says,  Unless  ye  he  regenerated,  rjoii  cannGt  eriter 
ikfo  the,  kingdom  cf  lieo^eTi'^* 

But  as  the  prirnitive  fathers  understood,  that  non^ 
could  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  unless  baptized, 
or  regenerated,  with  water,  as  S'i'^ell  as  bv  the  Spirit ;  and 
as  they  also  understood  Christ  to  have  given  assurance^ 
lho.t  littleju-fii/dren  (in  huk^,  ta  irephe,  infants  J  might 
belong  to  the  klhprdom  of  heaven ;  it  is  unavoidable  to 
(Conclude,  that  they  must  have  held  to  Infant  Baptism. 
For  if  none  can  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but 
such  as  are  baptized,  and  yet  infants  may  belong  to  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  ;  then  infants  certainlv  may  be  hap-j 
tiztd,  or,  as  expressed  by.  the  fathers,  regenerated,  \ 

■  Accordingly  Ireneus,  of  the  age  immediately  succeed- 
ing the  apost;es,  speaking  of  Christ  says  ;  "  ^Je  came  to 
save  all  persons  by  himself ;  all,  I  mean,  who  are  by  him 
regenerated  (or  baptized  J  unto  God  ;  Infants^  and  little 
OJies,  and  children,  and  vouths,  and  elder  persons.  There- 
fore he  went  through  the  several  ages  ;  for  infants,  being 
made  an  infant,  that  he  might  sanctify  infants  ;  to  little 
ones,  he  was  made  a  little  one.  Sec."*"  And  in  perfect 
consent  with  this  is-the  language  of  the  primitive  fathers 
generally*   -  . 

2.  The  primitive  church  held  baptism  to  have  come 
in  theY>lace  of  circumcision. — This  again  is  a  point  too 
clear  to  be  contested. 

In  his  Dialogue  with  Tryphon,  Justin  MartjT  says, 
"We  also,  who  by  him  have  had  access  to  God,  have 
not  received  this  carnal  Circumcision^  but  the  spiritual 
circj/.mci 91071;  and  v,'e  have  received  it  hy  baptism,,  by  the 
mercy  of  God,   because  we  were  sinners  :   It  is  allowed 

'  •  Ireueus  against  Heresies,  B.  U.  Chap.  39. 


118  LETTER    XXI. 

to  all  persons  to  receive  it  by  the  same  way,"  "A  Jew," 
says  Basil,"  "  doep  not  delay  circumcision,  because  of 
the  threatening,  that  every  soul  that  is  not  circumcised 
.the  eighth  day  shjill  be  cut  off  from  his  people  ;  and  dost 
thou  put  off  the  circumcision  made  without  ha7icls^  in  the 
putting  off  the  flesh,  wAz'cA  is  performed  in  baptism^  when, 
thou  hearest  our  Lord  himself  say,  Verihj^  verily^  -^-^^f/ 
unto  y'ou,  except  one  he  born  of  -water ^  and  of  the  Spirit^ 
he  cannot  enter  i?ito  the,  kingdom  of  Gq4''''* — "  Our  cir- 
i^umcisiony  I  mean  the  grace  of  baptismy"^  says  Chyysos- 
tom,  "  gives  cure  without  pain,  and  procures  to  us  a  thou- 
sand benefits.  And  it  has  no  determinate  time,  as  that 
(the  ancient  circumcision)  had  ;  but  one  that  is  in  the  very 
beginning  of  his  age,  or  one  that  is  in  the  middle  of  it,  or 
one  that  is  in  his  old  age,  may  receive  this  circumcision^ 
mode  nvithout  hands^'^ 

From  these  testimonies,  (and  with  these  the  fathers 
all  concur),  it  is  decisively  clear,  that  they  held  baptisin. 
to  have  come  in  the  place  of  circumcision ;  and  that  they 
understood  this  to  be  taught  by  the  apostle,  in  Col.  ii.  Jl. 
a  passage,  which,  ia  my  sixteenth  Letter,  I  adduced  for 
this  very  purpose,  and  to  which  Basil  and  Chrysostoin 
both  particularly  refer. 

But  if  the  fathers  held  baptism  to  have  come  in  the 
place  of  circumcision ;  then,  undoubtedly  they  held  it 
proper  and  important  to  be  administered  to  infants.  Ac- 
cordingly, to  receive  circumcision  by  baptism,  Justin 
says,  "  is  alloxoed  to  all persons^^  infants  as  well  as  adults. 
,And  if  a  Jew  .did  not  dare  to  delay  tlje  circumcision  of 
his  children ;  "..dost  thoii,"  says  Basil,  "  put  off  the  cirr 
cumcision^ — ^which  is  performed  by  baptism  /"  And  ac- 
cording to  Chrysostom,  this  christian  circumcision^  or 
baptism^  "  07ie  that  is  in  the  very  beginning  of  his  age 
may  receive." — This  proof.  Sir,  is  strong. 
,,  3.  The  earliest  direct  testimonies,  Which  we  have  qt\ 
the  subject  are  clear,  and  decisive,  that  Infant  Baptisni 
was  uniformly  practised  in  the  church  in  the  Apostle's 
davs,  and  downwards  for  many  ages. 

For  many  years  after  Christ,  as  there  was  no  dispute 
about  Infant  Baptisirl,  the  evidences  which  we  have  of 
the  practice  of  the  church,  in  this  particular,  is  rathe;- 
incidental  and  indirect.  Incidental,  however,  and  indi- 
rect as  it  is,  the  evidence,  as  already  shewn,  is  clear  and 
strong;  and  is  altogether  in  favor  of  Infant  Baptism,  a:: 


LETTER  XXi*  119 

the  universal  practice  of  the  primitive  church.  But  on 
the  first  occasion  for  the  purpose,  the  testimonies  afford^ 
cd  were  direct  and  decisive. 

About  a  hundred  years  after  the  apostles,  Origin  had 
occasion  expressly  to  speak  of  Infant  Baptism  as  having 
been  handed  down  from  the  apostles,  and  as  a  conclu- 
sive proof  of  original  sin.* 

At  Carthage,  about  150  years  after  the  apostles,  the 
question  was  submitted  to  a  council  of  sixty  six  bishops, 
'  Whether  the  Baptism  of  infants  ought  to  be  deferred 
until  the  eighth  day.'  To  this,  without  the  least  ques- 
tion as  to  the  right  of  infants  to  be  baptized,  it  was  unan- 
imously answered,  that  their  baptism  ought  not  to  be 
deferred. 

About  300  years  after  the  apostles,  the  testimonies  fur- 
nished by  the  Pelagian  controversy  are  full  and  invinci- 
ble. Against  Pelagius  and  his  adherents,  who  denied 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  the  doctrine  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism was  constantly  and  victoriously  urged,  by  all  the  or- 
thodox fathers,  with  Austin  at  their  head.  "  Why  are 
infant^  baptised  for  the  remission  of  sins,"  says  Austin, 
*'  if  they  have  none. — Infant  Baptism  the  ivhole  Church 
practises  ;  it  was  not  instituted  by  councils^  but  xvas  ever 
in  use.''^  With  this  argument  the  Pelagians  were  con- 
stantly pressed  by  Austin,  and  Jerome,  and  all  the  or- 
thodox fathers. — But  how  did  the  Pelagians  get  rid  of 
its  pressure. — Did  they  deny  the  fact?  Did  they  alledge 
that  Infant  Baptism  was  not  a  divine  institution  ;  was 
not  an  apostolic  practice,  but  a  mere  human  invention  ? — 
No,  Sir  :  but  Pelagius  himself,  that  he  might  effectually 
repel  the  suggestion  that  he  would  deny  Infant  Baptism, 
frankly  conceded  to  the.correctness  of  Austin's  statement, 
and  affirmed,  "  that  he  never  heard  of  any,  not  even  the 
most  impious  heretic,  rvho  denied  baptism  to  infants?'' 
And  in  this  his  adherents  all  concurred. 

Though  this  controversy  continued  long,  was  agitated 
with  great  zeal,  and  engaged  on  both  sides,  the  greatest 
talents  and  learning  of  the  age  ;  yet  no  one  pretended 
that  Infant  Baptism  was  not  a  doctrine  of  the  apostles  : 
but  on  the  one  side  it  was  constantly  urged,  and  on  the 
other  as  constantly  conceded,  that  it  had  always  been  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  church. 

*  Sec  note^  p.  57  of  my  Two  Discourses. 


i^O  tSTTEli    xM. 

This  evidence  is  so  full,  s<3  clear,  iind  direct,  as  t6 
have  constrained  the  aclcnowledgement,  on  all  hands, 
that,  at  the  period  now  in  view.  Infant  Baptism  was  uni- 
versally in  nse  ;  and  had  been,  for  so  long  a  time,  that 
the  best  informed  men  of  the  age  had  no  idea  that  it  had 
ever  been  otherwise.  But  let  it  be  remembered,  Sir^ 
this  was  only  about  300  vears  after  the  apostles. 

It  is  now  about  300  years  since  the  reformation  from 
Popery,  under  Luther  and  Calvin.  But  where  is  ther^ 
a  man  of  any  knowledge,  who  does^  not  know,  whether 
the  fathers  of  the  reformation  held,  or  not,  to  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  ?  Is  it  then  to  be  supposed,  that,  within 
300  years  after  the  Apostles,  the  whole  church  should 
havi  swerved  from  the  apostolic  practice,  in  this  particu- 
lar ;  and  this,  too,  in  so  silent  a  manner,  that  the  best 
informed  ministers  of  the  church,  both  orthodox  and  he- 
terodox, were  totally  unapprisedof  the  change  ?  To  be- 
lieve this.  Sir,  must  certainly  require  the  utmost  stretch 
of  sectarian  credulity. 

Undoubtedly,  if  the  baptism  of  infants  was  not  author- 
ized by  the  apostles,  it  could  never  have  been  introdu- 
ced into  the  church,  without  vehement  struggles  and  dis- 
putes. But  no  such  struggles  and  disputes,  on  this  sub- 
ject, were  known  in  the  primitive  ages.  The  practice 
universally  obtained  in  the  church  ;  and  for  several  of 
the  first  centuries,  not  a  single  person  appears  to  have 
disputed  its  divine  original. 

Turtullian,  in(?eed,  about  the  commencement  of  the 
third  century,  and  Gregory  Nazianzen,  about  150  years 
after  hiin,  for  some  strange  reasons,  entertained  the  opin- 
ion, that,  in  ordinary  cases,  it  would  be  better  if  baptism 
were  deferred.*     But  thev   both   held   that  in  case  of 

*Gregory  thought  best  to  defer  it  until  infdiits  were  i;irce 
years  old  ;  and  Turtullian.  until  afier  they  tvfre  married  !  That 
Tertullian  should  hold  an  opinion  so  singular,  was  mt  very  sur- 
prising, as  he  was  a  man  of  a  peculiarly  whimsical  mind  ;  fell 
into  the  error  ot  the  Montanists,  who  held  that  one  Monanus 
was  that  Paraclete,  or  Comforter,  whom  the  Saviour  had  pro- 
mised ;  and  that  better  and  iMer  discoveries  were  iT»ade  to  him 
than  had  been  made  to  the  apostles  ;  and  firmlly  was  ejected, 
from  the  communion  of  the  church.  Yet  this  man,  merely  be- 
cause he  advised  to  defer  baptism,  is  by  the  antipedobaptists, 
accounted  of  sufficient  authority,  to  place  in  opposition  to  the 
whole  body  of  the  fathers.  His  t£sti?7io7iy,  hcvever,  is  clearly 
in  our  favor. 


tETTER  5txV.  121 

sickness,  and  danger  of  death,  children  should  be  bap- 
tized without'delay ;  both  of  them  spoke  on  the  subject 
as  if  Infant  Baptism  was  universally  practised  in  the 
church  ;  and  neither  of  them  disputed  its  having  been 
thus  practised,  even  from  the  days  of  the  apostles.  Of 
these  men,  therefore,  it  is  particularly  to  be  observed,  that 
though  their  opinions  were  singular ;  their  testiyncny^ 
with  respect  to  the  practice  of  the  church,  was  perfectly 
concurrent  with  that  of  all  the  other  fathers. 

That  the  clear  and  direct  testimony,  now  adduced^ 
may,  with  the  utmost  confidence,  be  relied  on  as  correct, 
is  further  evident  from  this  important  fact ;  that  cata- 
logues of  all  the  primitive  sects  of  professing  christians 
Were  early  written,  and  are  still  extant ;  but  in  none  of 
those  catalogues  is  there  any,  riiention  of  any  wlTo  denied 
baptisrri  to  infants.  The  writers  were  Ireneus,  Eplpha- 
nius,  Philastrius,  Austin,  and  Theodoret.* 

Ireneus,  who,  about  twenty  years  alter  the  death  of  St. 
John,  was  a  hearer  of  Polycarp  at  Smyrna,  and  afterwards 
was  bishop  of  Lyons  in  France,  wrote  his  treatise  con- 
cerning Sects  about  76  years  after  the  apostles.  In  this 
treatise  he  mentions,  professedly,  all  the  sects  which  arose 
in  the  time  of  the  apostles,  and  which  had  sprung  up  in 
the  sevent}"  six  vears  after  their  death. 

Epiphanius,  Philastruis,  and  Austin,  all  wrote  their 
respective  catalogues,  in  a  period,  from  about  270  to 
290  years  after  the  apostles.  The  sects  enumerated  by 
Epiphanius  amounted  to  80,  which  he  said  were  all  he 
had  ever  heard  of  in  the  world  ;  Austin,  who  wrote  a 
little  later,  mentions  88  ;  and  Philastrius,  who  made  a 
difference  of  opinion  about  any  trifling  matter  a  heresy, 
gives  the  number  of  different  sects  at  100. 

Theodoret's  account  of  heresies  was  written  after  the 
apostles,  about  330  years  ;  and  is  very  learned,  methodi- 
cal, particular,  and  full. 

In  all  these  several  catalogues,  the  differences  of  opin- 
ion which  obtained  in  the  primitive  ages,  respecting 
baptism,  are  particularly  recounted,  and  minutely  desig- 
nated. Some  sjects  are  mentioned,  as  the  Valentinians, 
the  Manichees,  &c.  Vi'ho  made  no  use  of  water  baptisni 
tor  any,  either  infants,  or  adults  ;  and  the  different  forms 

*  \Vairs  Hist.  In.  Bap.  P.  I.  Chap.  x:;i. 
J  et.  Q. 


123  liETTER   XX  IT. 

and  ways,  in  which  baptism  was  administered  by   differ- 
ent sects,  are  distinctly  described. 

But  in  no  one  of  these  catalogues  is  there  to  be  found 
the  least  intimation  of  any,  (except  such  as  denied  water 
baptism  altogether,)  who  did  not  hold  to  the  baptism  of 
irfants  as  a  divine  institution. 

Now,  Sir,  what  proof  could  be  more  satisfactory  than 
this  ?  What  evidence  more  clear,  or  more  direct,  could 
\fe  have,  that  Infant  Baptis-m  was  practised  in  the  church, 
universally,  from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  down  the  lapse 
of  many  succeeding  ages  ?  And  in  view  of  this  proof, 
of  how  little  weight  are  the  unsupported  assertions  of 
Walefred  Strabo,  Ludovicus  Vives,  Salmasius,  B©hemi-^ 
us,  or  any  modern  writers  ?  Of  how  little  weight  all  the 
shadowy  things,  which  are  said  to  perplex  the  minds  of 
the  unlearned,  and  to  divert  their  attention  from  solid 
argument  and  fact  ? 

In  this  summary  view,  many  collateral  and  detached 
proofs  of  Infant  Baptism  are  necsssarily  omitted.  But 
the  evidences  now  exhibited,  are  such  as  I  deem  connect- 
ed, clear,  and  conclusive  ;  especially  as  there  is  no  argu- 
ment, of  the  least  solidity,  to  be  opposed  to  them. 

Upon  the  ground  of  these  evidences,  therefore,  I  feel 
mvself  strong  ;  and  can  hear,  undismayed,  all  the  vehe- 
ment declamations,  censures,  and  anathemas  of  Antipedo- 
baptism.  Yes,  Sir  ;  undismayed,  and  unmoved,  I  can 
hear  mvself  called  a  bigottcd^Wisrzzcr,  an  abetter  of  Ant'i^ 
Christy  an  adherent  of  the  beast^  a  liar  and  deceiver,  and 
all  the  opprobrious  names,  which  Mr*  Merrill,  and  hi» 
zealous  partizans,  have  thought  proper  so  liberally  to  be- 
stow upon  me. 

Yours,  dear  Sir,  8tc- 


LETTER  XXII. 

JREV.  If  DEAR  SIR, 

Of  the  substantial  correctness  of  my  statements  and  re- 
marks, in  my  Discourses,  relative  to  the  mode  of  baptism, 
I  am  fully  persuaded  ;  nor  are  they  in  the  least  degree 
ii^alidated,  by  any  thing  which  you  have  thought  proper 


IZTTER  XXt.  123 

•to  offer  in  opposition  to  them.  Some  things,  however, 
in  this  part  of  your  Strictures,  ought  not,  perhaps,  to  pass, 
without  some  notice.  But  here,  I  must  be  as  brief  as 
possible,  as  mv  Letters  are  already  extended  to  a  greater 
length,  than  I  at  first  contemplated. 

With  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  I  had  occasioa 
to  state,  that  'the  question  properly  bet^Tee^l  us  is  not 
this,  Whether  any  were  baptized,  in  the  davs  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  by  immersion  ;  but  it  is  precisely  this. 
Whether  immersion,  or  dipping,  be  the  only  valid  mode 
of  baptism.' — Upon  this  ycu  have  thought  proper  to  ob- 
serve :  "By  this  it  v.'ill  be  seen,  that  if  it  be  not  A  ques- 
tion between  us  and  them,  whether  some  were  baptized, 
in  the  davs  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  by  immersion> 
then  it  must  be  a  conceded  point,  that  there  were  some 
.immersed  at  that  period."  And  you  afterwards  proceed 
as  if  I  had  made  such  a  concession.     P.  306. 

Now,  Sir,  were  I  only  to  intimate,  that  vou  do  not 
know  the  logical  difference  between  the  question^  and  a 
questio7i,  would  you  not  be  offended  ?  But  if  you  do 
know  this  difference,  how  is  it  to  be  accounted  for,  that, 
in  the  present  instance,  you  should. not  observe  it.  Is 
it  possible,  that  you  would  purpnwelv  take  advantage  of 
the  supposed  ignorance,  ov  credulitv,  of  \X)\ir  readers  ? 

I  did,  indeed,  say,  'the  ^wevficr?,  properly  between  us, 
is  not,  Whether  any  were  baptized,  in  the  davs  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  by  immersion,  or  dipping  :'  for  this, 
,eertainlv,  is  not  the  question,  on  which  our  dispute  turns. 
But  I  did  lifcjt  say,  this  is  not  a  questioyi  between  us.  |! 
did  not  concede.,  that  some,  in  the  days  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  were  baptized  bv  immersion.  But  I  said,  and 
I  now  repeat  it,  that  could  it  even  be  proved,  a?,  hoxvev^ 
er^  it  CANNOT,  that  some  were  baptized,  in  the  apostles 
days,  by  immersion  ;  it  would  avail  nothing  against  our 
practice  ;  unless  it  could  also  be  proved,  that  none  were 
baptized  iii  any  other  wav.— But  this  you  thought  con- 
venient to  represent  as  a  contradiction.—- Is  not  this,  Sir, 
getting  along,  at  a  miserable  rate  ? 

Another  statement,  which  I  had  occasion  to  niake, 
was  as  follows  :  *It  is,  however,  a  well  supported  fact, 
that,  in  the  first  ages  of  christianitv,  and  for  twelve  or 
^fteen  hundred  years  afterwards,  baptism  by  sprinkling, 
*)r  affusion,  was  universally  allowed  to  be  scriptural  and 
f  alid. .  Even  those,  who,  m  crJi^ari/ cji^£'5,  baptized  bs- 


t24i  lETTER  XX£I. 

immersion,  did  not  deny,  but  admitted,  the  validity  of 
baptism  by  sprinkling,  or  affusion.*  Upon  this  you  have 
been  pleased  to  observe  :  "The  reader  will  here  notice 
another  y?///  and  fair  concession.,  that  the  manner  of  baptir 
2ing  was,  in  ordinary  cases.,  by  immersion.''^  And  a-r 
gain  :  "Mr.  Worcester  has  conceded.,  not  only  implicitly, 
but  in  direct  terms,  that  immersion  was  the  ancient  ordi- 
mary  mode?'* 

Now,  Sir,  let  it  be  supposed,  that  you  had  somewhere 
had  occasion  to  say,  'Formerly,  even  those  of  the  anti- 
pedobaptists,  who,  in  ordinary  cases,  baptized  by  sprin* 
Jcling,  did  not  deny,  but  admitted,  the  validity  of  baptism 
by  immersion  .*  Were  a  school  boy,  only  ten  years  old, 
so  grossly  to  mistake,  misconstrue,  or  misrepresent,  vour 
vrords,  as  to  say,  *Dr.  Baldwin  has  made  a  full  and  fair 
concession,,  that,  formerly,  the  antipedobaptists,  in  ordi- 
nary C(2.s^5,  baptized  by  sprinkling  ;'  would  you  not  think 
him  to  deserve  a  severe  reprimand  ? — I  submit  the  ques- 
tion, Sir.  to  your  conscience  ;  for  the  cases  are  similar. 

No,  Sir,  I  have  made  no  such  concession.,  as  vou  have 
thought  it  convenient  to  assume,  I  did  not  say,  that,  in 
the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  "the  manner  of  baptizing 
was,  in  ordinary  cases.,  by  immersion.  Nor  that  immer- 
sion  was  the  ancient  ordinary  mode.*'  But  I  said  that  'in 
the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  those,  (however  many  or 
few)  who,  in  ordinary  cases,  baptized  by  immersion,  did 
jiot  deny,  but  admitted,  the  validity  of  baptism  by  sprink- 
ling, or  affusion.*  And  on  the  correctness  of  this  state- 
ment, Sir,  I  still  feel  myself  warranted  to  inskist. 

In  page  311  you  have  presented,  in  one  view,  what 
you  wish  to  have  considered  as  my  '"''coyicessions,^'  and 
*^contradictionsi'  the  principal  of  which  are  those,  on 
which  I  have  now  remarked  ;  and  immediately  afterr 
wards,  you  have  made  an  essay  towards  an  attempt  to 
make  out  another  "-inconsistency^*  in  my  statements. 
But  as  your  readers,  I  trust,  generally,  however  it  may 
be  with  yourself,  will  readily  perceive,  that,  without  any 
'■^inconsistency,''*  a  writer  may  speak  of  a  thing  as  proved 
^byfair  implication*  where  he  acknowledges  the  proof  is 
not  ^'direct  ;**  any  further  attention  to  this  part  of  your 
Strictures,  would,  probably,  be  deemed  a  reprehensible 
waste.  But  will  you  p^fdon  me.  Sir,  if  I  take  leave  to 
pbserve,  in  the  general,  with  respect  to  this  seventh  sec- 
tion of  your  Appendix,  that  I  ca;mot  but  think  that  on  % 


lETTER   3fXII.  125 

serious  review  of  it,  you  will  see  abundant  reason  for  re- 
■gret,  that  you  suffered  it  to  go  so  hastily  to  the  press. 

The  proof  Sir,  which  in  my  Discourses  I  exhibited, 
•that  immersion  is  uot  the  only  authorised  mode  of  bap^ 
tism  ;  but  that  sprinkling,  or  affusion,  is,  at  least,  equally 
scriptural  and  valid  ;  I  must  still  be  allowed  to  consider* 
as  solid  and  conclusive.  But  in  confirmation  of  this,  and 
an  opposition  to  the  assertions,  not  only  of  yourself  but 
cf  antipedobaptists  in  general  ;  narrow  as  my  present  lim- 
its are,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  present  the  following 
plain  and  concise  statements,  which  I  seriously  and  caur 
didly  believe  to  be  correct,  and  capable  of  solid  support. 

1.  The  Greek  words,  baptizo^  baptismos^  &c.  render-' 
cd  bapjize^  and  baptism^  do  not  necessarily,  nor  primari- 
ly, signify  im.mersion,  any  more  than  affusion  or  sprink- 
ling, 

Baptizo  is  a  derivative  from  bapto.  But  in  the  Greelt 
language,  it  is  a  general  pr'nciple,  or  rule,  that  derivatives 
in  izo  are  not  limited  to  the  original  meaning  of  their 
primitives  \  but  have  uniformly  a  secondary,  conseqneru' 
tiaU  and  extended  meaning.  Wettings  xvctshing,  or 
cleansivg^  is  a  consequence  of  dipping.  If,  then,  bapto^ 
signifies  to  dip^  or  immerse  ;  the  consequential  and  prop- 
er meaning  of  its  derivative,  baptizo^  is  to  xvet^  to  xvash^ 
or  cleanse  ;  without  -determining  at  all  the  mode^  in 
which  the  wettings  washings  or  cleansijig^  is  to  be  per- 
formed. That  this  is  accc  ling  to  the  analogy  of  the 
Greek  language,  is  shewn  I  ,  the  soundest  philological 
criticism,  in  a  late  publication,*  by  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Sweat  of  Sanford  ;  and  that  such  is  the  true  sense  of  the 
word,  babtizo,  has  been  abundantly  shewn,  from  the  best 
lexicograph<;rs  and  critics,  by  many  writers  on  this  sub- 
Xect. 

Hence,  had  it  been  the  intention  of  the  Saviour,  to 
confine  his  followers  to  dipping  or  immerbion  ;  the  prop- 
er word  to  express  this  ordinance  would  have  been,  not 
baptizo^  but  bapto.  The  constant  and  invariable  use, 
therefore,  of  the  derivative,  baptizo^  to  rvet^  to  xuash^  to 
cleanse,  instead  of  the  primitive  bapto^  which  origiivalhf^ 

*  Entitled  "A  Critical  Investigation  of  the  Mode 
OF  Baptism,  Sec."  a  publication  replete  with  solid  learnincj ; 
and  in  which  are  exposed,  in  a  most  clear  and  convincing  liglit, 
the  unsoundness  and  iutility  of  the  unlearned,  criticisms  ia  favor 
pf  imraersionj  with  which  the  age  has  been  deluged. 


IS^  LETT'ER    XXif.. 

\xa.i. not  invariably^  signifies  to  dip,  Is,  to  my  mind,  « 
clear  proof,  that  the  Saviour  did  not  intend  to  enjoia 
jjnmersion,  as  the  only  valid  mode  of  baptism. 
.  2.  There  is  no  evidence  that  any  of  the  baptisms, 
cither  by  John  the  Baptist,*  or  by  the  apostles,  were 
performed  by  immersion. 

Their  going  down  to  the  water,  and  coming  up  from 
the  -water,  as  expressed  in  the  original  ;  or  even  into 
the  -water,  and  out  of  the  water ^  as  expressed,  with  very 
doubtful  correctness,  in  our  translation  ;  is  certainly  np 
proof,  that  either  Christ,  or  the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  wa« 
immersed.  As  they  were  abroad  in  the  open  country, 
it  is  by  no  means  strange,  that  they  should  step  down  to, 
or  even  into^  a  water,  near  at  hand,  in  order  to  be  bapti* 
zed,  by  affusion  or  sprinkling.  And  it  is  particularly  to 
be  observed,  that  it  is  not  said,  they  were  dipped^  or  itnr 
versed, 

3.  The  circumstances,  attending  the  baptisms,  record- 
ed in  Scripture,  are  strongly  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  or 
affusion,  as  the  mode  in  which  they  were  performed. 

In  the  open  country  about  Jordan,  a  place  favorable, 
by  reasoH  of  the  plenty  of  water,  ( polla  hudata,  many  lit- 
tle  streams,)  for  the  ntultitudes  with  their  beasts  ;  but 
remote  from  any  accommodations,  for  changing  their 
apparel ;  thousands  of  the  Jews,  from  all  parts  of  Judea, 
were  baptized  by  John.  Is  it  to  be  supposed,  that  John 
was  in  the  water  all  the  time,  or  even  so  great  a  part  of 
it  as  he  certainly  must  have  been,  had  he  baptized  by 
immersion  P  Is  it  probable,  that  those  multitudes,  gath- 
ered from  all  parts  of  Judea,  were  in  a  situation  to 
change  their  apparel,  or  otherwise  to  be  decentlyf  im- 
mersed? Do  not  the  whole  circvunstances  clearlv  in- 
dicate, that  they  must  have  been  baptized,  by  spriniUjig^ 
or  affusion  ? 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  three  thousand  from  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  world,  were  baptized  by  the  apostles  ajt 
Jerusalem.  Have  we  any  intimation,  Sii,  of  their  gOr 
ing  to  a  pond,  or  a  riter  ?  Were  they,  when  assem- 
bled at  the  temple  in  Jerusalem,  in  any  situation  to  be 

*  Not  that  John's  baptism  was  Christian  baptism. 

t  Decently.  Notwithstanding  your  impassioned  appeals  on 
the  subject  of  decency,  the  Gospel  certainly  re^uireSj  that.«iJ 
thintrs  be  done  PECENTLY.    \  Cor.  xiv.  40. 


tETTER  SSlt.  1'2Y 

immersed  P  Is  It  conceivable,  that  the  apostles,  in  the 
short  time  allowed  for  this  service,*  should  have  bapti- 
zed the  whole  three  thousand  by  immersion  ?  Do  not 
the  whole  circumstances  again  prove,  that  they  must 
have  been  baptized  by  afFusion,  or  sprinkling? 

Cornelius  and  his  household  were  baptized  bv  Peter. 
Is  there  anv  intimation  of  their  going  abroad  for  this 
purpose  ?  Is  there  not,  on  the  contrary,  everv  reason  to 
b^elieve,  that,  when  Peter  said,  Can  any  -man  Jorbid  wa- 
ter that  these  should  not  he  baptized^  water  was  immedi- 
ately brought,  and  they  v.'ere  baptized  in  the  house  where 
they  were  ? 

At  dead  of  night,  in  the  city  of  Philippi,  the  yailer, 
and  all  his,  \7ere  baptized,  by  Paul  and  Silas.  Is  it  to 
be  believed,  that  in  a  citv,  guarded  by  Roman  centinels, 
the  prisoners,  Paul  and  Silas,  when  their  Jailer  had  re- 
ceived a  strict  charge,  at  his  peril,  to  keep  them  safely, 
would,  nevertheless,  take  him  and  his  family  abroad,  in 
the  night,  just  after  the  whcxle  city  had  been  roused  by 
an  earthquake,  and  go  to  a  pond,  or  a  river,  to  baptize 
them  by  immersion  \\  No,  Sir  ;  this  is  not  to  be  believ- 
ed, by  anv  impartial  mind. 

In  all  these  several  instances,  are  not  the  circumstan- 
ces clearlv  in  favor  of  sprinkling,  or  affusion  f  And  do 
thev  not  infinitely  outweigh  the  simple  circumstances,  so 
much  insisted  on  by  antipedobaptists,  of  John's  baptizing 
at  Enon,  because  there  ivas  much  water  (for  the  conve- 
nience of  the  multitudes  with  their  beasts)  there  ;  of 
Christ  coming  up  from  the  water,  and  of  Philip  and  the 
eunuch  going  down  to  the  water  ? 

4.  The  signification  of  baptism  is  clearly  in  favor  of 
affusion,  or  sprinkling. 

Baptism,  as,  in  my  sixteenth  Letter  I  had  occasion 
to  shew,  signifies  the  renewing  of  the  heart  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Bat  the  scripture  never  speaks  of  men,  as  being; 
dipped,  or  immersed,  in  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  constantly 
represents  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  as  htm.'^poured  or. 
sprinkled^  upon  them  ;  as  coming  dozuri   upo'z   them,  like 

*  The  time  cguld  not  have  been  mere  than  six  hoyrs.  But  had 
all  the  apostles  been  employed,  during  six  hours,  less  than  a 
minute  and  a  Aa// would  have  been  ailowed  for  the  baptism  of 
each  of  the  three  thousand  1 

t  Nothing  can  be  more  unfounded,  than  the  idea  of  their  belr.p; 
immersed  in  prison. 


ISS  LKTtER  JCXII. 

ram  iipon  the  mown  grass,  and  Hie  shcwefs,  tvhzch  r^^- 
ter  the  earthi 

5.  The  references  to  baptism',  ifi  the  different  parts  of 
scripture,  are  clearly  in  favor  of  sprmkUng^  or  affiisioru 

Referring  to  gospel  times,- the  prophet  Isaiah,  speak- 
ing of  Christ  says,  So  shall  he  sprin'KLE  many  nations. 
In  a  promise  to  the  Jews,  which  was  also  to  have  its  ul- 
timate fulfilment  in  gospel  davs,  Jehovah,  by  the  mouth 
of  Ezekiel,  said  :  Ixuill  Sprinkle  clean  rvaterupon  them^ 
and  they  shall  be  clean.  And  in  the  new  Testament,  man- 
kind are  represented  ^s  being  cleansed  by  the  sprink** 
lA^G  of  the  blodd  of  C   '-ist.  '''^ 

tJnder  the  ancient  ec6nomy,  various  purifications  were 
enjoined,  of  which  by  far  the  greater  part  were  by  sprink' 
ling.  The  unclean,  in  order  to  be  cleansed,  were  to  be 
SPRINKLED  zvith  the  zvater  of  purification  ;  and  almost  alt 
things  were  purged^  or  cleansed,  by  the  sprinkling  of 
water,  and  of  blood.  But  by  the  apostle  to  the  Hebre\vs 
these  various  purifications,  or  sprinklings^  are  expressly 
v-'olled  (diaphorois  baptismois)  diverse  bapti.'nns. 

When  passingthro'  the  sea,  on  dry  land^  the  Israelites, 
as  we  are  assured,  were  sprinkled^  with  spray  from  the 
sea,  and  with  rain  from  the  cloud,  which  covered  them. 
The  earth  shook^  the  heavns^  also,  dropped  at  the  pres-  ^ 
ence  of  God.  Thou,  0  God,  didst  send  a  plentiful 
RAIN,  Tjuhcreby  thoudid-st  confirm  thine  inheritance  xvhen 
it  xvas  zuecry.  This  sprinkli?ig  with  spray  from  the  sea, 
and  rain  from  the  cloud,  is  by  the  apostle  to  the  Corin- 
thians called  a  baptism.  Al!  our  fathers,  says  he,  rvere 
BAPTIZED  tcnfo  3Ioses,  in,  or  by,  the  cloud  and  the  sea. 
A  decisive  proof  this,  t\\-xi  sprinkling  \&  baptism. 

With  reference  to  the  sufferings,  which  he  was  to  en- 
dure, Christ  repeatedly  spoke  of  a  baptism,  with  which 
he  was  to  be  baptized.  But  what  was  that  baptism  ? 
"  The  sacred  body  of  the  blessed  Jesus  was  truly,  and 
literally  baptized.  He  was  xvct,  and  bathed,  in  his  own 
tears^  and  sxveat,  and  blood,  while  in  his  agony  in  the  gar- 
den, when  scourged,  and  when  nailed  to  the  cross.'* 
This  was  the  baptism.  "  Accordingly  it  was  a  common 
expression  of  the  ancient  fathers,  concerning  the  mar- 
tyrs,— that  they  were  baptized  with  their  own  blood." 
Here  again  is  clear  proof  against  the  dogma,  that  im- 
mersion only  is  baptism. 


LETTER  XXIII.  129 

The  wonderful  effusion  of  the  Spirit,  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  was  declared  by  Peter  to  be  in  fulfilment  of 
the  prophtcy  in  Joel,  I  tuill  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all 
Jlesh^  &c.  Chrht^  says  thijs  apostle,  hein^^  by  the  right 
hand  of  God^  exalted^  and  having  received  of  the  Father 
the  promise  of  the  Hohf  Ghosts  he  hath  shed  forth  this, 
which  ye  ncxu  sec  and  hear.  Thus  were  they  baptized 
by  the  Hoi v  Ghost  ;  not  immersed  or  dipped  in  the  Spi- 
rit ;  but  the  Sp'nlt  poured  out,  and  shed  forth  upon  them. 

Now  I  ask  you.  Sir,  are  not  these  plain  references  to 
baptism  clearly  in  point  ?  Are  they  not  all  decisively  in 
favour  oi  sprinkling  or  affusion^  as  a  scriptural  mode  of 
baptism  ?  Do  they  not,  at  least,  form  an  argument  in 
favour  of  sprinklings  of  tenfold  greater  weight  and  so- 
lidity, than  can  be  formed  in  favour  of  immersion^  by  the 
dubious  phrases,  into  the  tvater^  and  out  of  the  xvater,  and 
buried  in  baptism^  on  which,  for  a  sectarian  charm,  such 
perpetual  changes  are  rung. 

What  I  have  here  exhibited  is  but  a  very  summary 
View  of  the  evidences  of  sprinklings  as  a  proper  and 
scriptural  mode  of  baptism.  But,even  from  this  summa- 
ry view,  it  will  be  seen,  I  trust,  that  the  scripture  through 
out  is  clearly  in  our  favor  ;  and  therefore,  that  to  declare, 
as  we  often  hear  it  declai-ed,  that  we  have  not  a  word  of 
scripture  for  our  practice,  savours  but  very  little  of  true 
christian  modesty. 

Yours,  dear  Sir,  &c. 


LETTER  XXIII. 

REV.^  DEAR  SIR, 

Though  nothing  was  farther  from  my  heart,  than  a  de- 
sign to  calumniate  the  antipedobaptists  ;  yet  I  thought  it 
my  duty  to  give,  in  my  Discourses,  a  faithful  represent- 
ation of  some  of  their  errors  and  irregularities.  This  I 
did  under  a  high  sense  of  responsibility,  and  not  without 
a  foresight,  that  it  would  draw  upon  me  much  odium  and 
reproach.  But  I  must  confess  to  you,  Sir,  that,  consid- 
■rin^  your  station  and  character,  I  hardly  expected,  that; 

Let.  R. 


130  ^    iRTTfa  xxTir. 

toy  serious  r'fcp^csefttatlons,  would  bv  you  be  pubHcly  de- 
nounced, as  bitter  "invectives,"  and  the  effusions  of  a. 
^^'persecuting  spirit."  As  it  is,  however,  I  must  be  al- 
lowed to  reply  to  you,  upon  this  head,  with  great  serious- 
ness and  plainness.— What  you  have  chosen  to  call  my 
'■'■invectives  against  the  baptists,"  you  have  numerically 
arranged,  under  several  distinct  articles. 

*'l.  We  are  charged,"  you  say,  "with  imbibing  the  er- 
ror of  the  old  legal -Jexvs^  by  unscripturally  blending  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  made  with  Abraham,  and  what 
is  called  the  Sinai  covenant,  together." 

That  you  do  blend  these  covenants,  Sir,  is  an  undeni- 
able fact  ;  and  that  in  consequence  of  this,  you  are  entan- 
gled in  the  toils  of  error,  is  what  I  seriously  believe,  and 
would  devoutly  deplore.  Is  it  not  by  blending  these 
covenants,  that  you  are  led  to  conclude,  that  because  the 
Sinai  covenant,  the  laiv  of  conunandments  contained  in  or- 
dinances^  has  been  done  axvay,  God's  everlasting  covenant 
rvith  Ahraharyi  and  his  seed  mnst  also  have  been  done  a- 
way  ?  This,  Sir,  I  consider  a  great  error,  and  the  conse- 
quences of  it  I  believe  to  be  exceedingly  deplorable. 

*'2.  They  denv  God's  everlasting  covenant  of  supera>- 
bounding  grace,  the  grand  charter  of  the  inheritance  and 
privileges  of  his  people,  the  source  of  blessings  to  all  the 
kindreds  of  the  earth." 

This  serious  representation,  is  what  you  are  pleased 
to  call  my  second  "  invective  ;"  and  upon  this  you  ex- 
claim :  "If  there  were  any  law  in  force  to  burn  heretics^ 
I  know  not,  my  brethren,  how  we  should  feel  to  have 
such  a  charge  as  this yr/ZwizTZfl^e-^  against  us!"  Such  is 
the  manner,  in  which  you  would  turn  the  attention  of 
your  readers  from  a  serious  consideration  of  your  error, 
and  fix  in  their  minds  aa  odium  against  me.  But  this, 
Sir,  must  not  avail  you. 

That  God's  covenant  with  Abraham  and  his  seed  is 
his 'everlasting  covenant  of  superabounding  grace,  the 
grand  charter  of  the  inheritance  and  privileges  of  his 
people,  and  the  source  of  blessings  to  all  the  kindreds  of 
the  earth,'  I  trust  I  have  sufficiently  shewn.  But  that 
you,  and  your  brethren,  generally,  do  'deny*  this  cove- 
nant, utterly  disavow  all  connexion  with  it,  and  even  re- 
proach, as  '"'■yudaizers.''*  and  abetters  of  '■^Antichrist" 
those  who  professedly  adhere  to  it— is  it  not  a  fact  ar 
notorious,  as  it  is  solemn  ? 


LETTER   XXni.  ISl 

**3  They  deny  the  church  of  God,  which  was  formed' 
in  the  family    of  Abrahajn,    &c."     This    you  have  set 
down   as   my  third  ^''inveCtive^^-^But   "how,"   say  you, 
**has  Mr.    Worcester  proved  this  ?     Kow  !  by   his  own 
assertion^  as  he  has  most  of  his  other  charges." 

Did  you  mean,  Sir,  to  impress  a  belief,  that  my  rcpre- 
.sentation,in  this  instance,  was  not  just  ?  Is  there  anv  man, 
who  will  doubt,  whether  you  do  deny  the  church  of  God, 
which  was  formed  in  the  famil}'  of  Abraham,  and  utter- 
ly disclaim  all  connexion  with  it,  as  if  it  were  unworthy 
even  to  be  called  a  church?  if  so  ;  let  such  an  one  only 
listen,  for  the  shortest  time,  to  the  daily  language  of  an- 
*ipedobapt!Sts  ;  let  him  only  read  any  antipedobaptist  pub- 
lication ;  let  him  only  cast  his  eye  over  your  book,  and 
particularly,  the  third  Section  of  y<;ur  Appendix  ;  and  he 
will  doubt  no  longer  :  but  if  he  be  a  serious  man,  and  a 
friend  to  the  ancient  Zion  of  the  Holy  Gne  of  Israel, 
his  feelings  will  be  shocked,  his  heart  will  be  distressed, 
and  he  will  solemnlv  yield  to  the  conviction,  that  my 
representation  of  vour  error,  in  this  instance,  is  neither 
to  be  treated  with  lightRess,  nor  attributed  to  a  spirit  of 
persecution. 

"4.  The  grand  provision,  which,  in  his  infinite  v/isdom 
and  grace,  ^^ehovah  has  been  pleased  to  make,  for  the  pre- 
servation of  a  righteous  seed  upon  the  earth,  and  for  the 
maintenance  and  promotion,  from  age  to  age,  of  his  cause 
and  kingdoiT^  in  this  hostile  world,  they  i>ot  only  deny, 
but  openly  contemn." 

This,  Sir,  you  have  noted  as  my  fourth  "invective^* ; 
and  with  reference  to  this,  you  say,  "This  charge  appears 
-to  us  so  totally  unfounded^  and  so  far  from  that  spirit  of 
meekness,  which  the  love  of  Christ  inspires,  that  we 
shall  attempt  no  other  vindication,  but  a  solemn  appeal 
to  facts,  and  to  the  feelings  of  our  fellow  men."  You 
then  proceed,  in  an  impassioned,  (I  will  not  say  boastful) 
representation  of  the  piety  and  zeal,  the  labors  and  self- 
denial,  the  love  and  success,  of  yourself  and  your  breth- 
ren. But  what  is  all  this,  Sir,  to  the  purpose  ?  Great 
as  your  piety  and  zeal,  your  labors  and  self-denial,  your 
love  and  your  success  j  may  be  ;  do  you  not,  after  all, 
utterly  deny,  and  openly  contemn,  that  provision,  which 
in  his  infinite  wisdonl  and  grace,  Jehuvah  has  been  pleas- 
ed to  make,  (hrj  connecting  children  xv.it h  their  parents^ 
in  his  everlasting  covenant,)  for  the  preservation  of  a 


132  XETTER   XXrit. 

righteous  seed  upon  the  earth,  and  for  the  maintenance 
and  promotion,  from  age  to  age,  of  his  cause  and  king- 
dom, in  this  hostile  world  ? 

That  it  is  in  the  way  of  this  covenant  connexion  of 
children  with  their  parents,  and  the  obli^tions  and  du- 
ties involved  in  it,  that  God  has  been  pleased  to  provide 
for  the  preservation  of  a  righteous  seed,  and  the  roain^  ■ 
tenance  of  his  church  in  the  world,  has  by  this  time, 
I  trust,  been  sufficiently  proved.  And  that  in  this  way, 
principally,  a  righteous  seed  has  actually  been  preserved, 
and  the  church  of  God  maintained,  from  the  earliest 
ages  to  the  present,  no  one,  I  believe,  who  will  seriously 
review  the  history  of  the  church,  will  deny. 

Was  it  not.  Sir,  in  the  line  of  Abraham's  descendants, 
principallif^  that  a  righteous  seed  was  preserved  on  the 
earth,  from  the  first  establishment  of  the  covenant  with 
Itiwa.^  until  the  Messiah  came,  the  middle  wall  of  parti- 
tion was  broken  down,  and  the  blessing  of  Abraham  came 
upon  the  gentiles  P  Is  it  not  a  fact  too  plain  to  be  contes- 
ted, that  since  the  gentiles  first  became  felloxv  heirs  arid  of 
the  same  body,  and  partakers  of  his  promise  i7i  Christ  by 
the  gospel ;  piety  and  all  the  blessings  of  the  covenant, 
have  been  transmitted  from  parents  to  children,,  down 
from  generation  to  generation  ;  and  that  in  this  wav,  prin- 
cipally, the  cause  and  church  of  God  have  been  maintain- 
ed and  perpetuated?  And  is  it  not  an  obvious  and  in- 
teresting fact,  that  of  those,  who,  in  our  age  and  countrj', 
are  hopefully  brought  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  notr 
only  in  the  Pedobaptist  connexion,  but  even  in  your^St 
a  very  great  proportion  are  persons,  who  were  publicly 
given  up  to  God  by  their  parents,  and  baptized  in  their 
infancy  ? 

Yes,  Sirj  it  is,  I  believe  a  generally  acknowledged 
fact,  that  by  far  the  better  part  of  the  members  of  your 
churches  are  persons,  who  had  pedobaptist  parents,  and 
vrere  baptized  in  their  infancy  '.—^persons,  to  whom,  if  in- 
deed they  be  subjects  of  grace,  God  has  manifested  his 
mercy  in  faithfulness  to  his  covenant ;  but  who,  never- 
theles,  have,  by  some  means,  been  prev(iile4  on,  ungrate- 
fully to  disavow  that  very  covenant,  and  contemn  the 
gracious  provision  made  in  it  for  their  children.  Affec- 
ting thought !  Most  earnestly.  Sir,  would  I  recommend 
it  to  vour  serious  consideration. 

God  will  be  faithful  to  his  covenant,  and  bless  his  own 
institutions,  notwithstanding  the  contempt,  with  which 


LETTER  XXIII.  ISS 

they  are  treated.  Hence,  It  is  in  the  tteighbourhood 
mostly  of  pedobaptist  churches,  that  your  churches  flour- 
ish. You  are  built  up  with  proselytes  from  the  pedobap-. 
tist  faith,  and  your  best  members  are  gained  over  front 
pedobaptist  connexions.  And  I  can  canfHdly  declare  it 
mv  serious  belief,  that  without  pedobaptists  you  could 
not  subsist ; — if  there  were  no  pedobaptists,  your  church-. 
es  would  decay,  and  eventually  become  extinct. 

The  preaching  of  the  gospel  is  certainly  of  vast  im- 
portance. But  God,  though  a  sovtreign,  dispenses 
his  grace  in  his  own  instituted  way.  It  is,  thei-efore, 
not  to  be  expected,  thai,  in  gospelized  lands,  the  preach.- 
ing  of  the  gospel  will  be  attended  with  much  success, 
without  an  observance  of  his  other  histitutions,  and  par- 
ticularly the  sacred  dedication,  and  holy  7wrtiire,  of 
children,  which  his  covenant  enjoins.  Were  these  du- 
ties, therefore,  miiversallv,  neglected,  the  churches  would 
decay,  and  eventually  fail.* 

Shall  children,  then,  and  young  persons,  be  taught, 
and  persuaded,  to  despise  the  holy  covenant  and  ordi- 
nance of  the  living  God  ?  Shall  parents  be  taught,  and 
persuaded,   to  neglect  the  great  duty  to  their    children, 

*  in  connexion  with  the  above  remarks,  without  any  intention 
to  reproach,  but  ^yith  the  deepest  concern,  I  would  submit,  for 
serious  consideration,  the  following  queries. 

Was  not  the  State  of  Rhode-Island  originally  settled  on  and-' 
pedobaptist  principles  ?  And  have  not  those  principles,  there, 
been  left  to  their  free,  and  uncontrolled,  operation  and  influ- 
ence .'  Is  it  not  to  Rhode-Island,  therefore,  that  we  are  to  look 
for  the  fullest  and  fairest  experiment  of  antipedobaptism,  ever 
made  in  thi«  country,  or  perhaps,  in  the  world  ?  If  then,  the 
principles  of  antipedobaptism  were  true,  and  scriptural  ;  might 
we  not  reasonably  look  to  Rhode-Island  for  a  more  general  pre- 
valence of  divine  knowledge,  a  more  general  and  sacred  obser- 
vance of  divine  institutions,  more  pure  and  flourishing  chui-ch- 
es,  and  moi-e  of  the  spirit  of  primitive  Christianity,  than  is  to 
be  expected  in  almost  any  other  })nrt  of  the  globe  ? 

But  what  is  the  actual  result  of  this  experiment  ?  Alas  I  let 
the  forsaken  and  decayed  houses  of  God — let  the  profaned 
and  unacknowledged  day  of  the  Lord — let  the  unread  and  even 
cxilttd  oracles  of  divine  truth — let  the  neglected  and  despised 
ordinances  of  religion — let  the  dear  children  and  youth  growing 
up  ill  the  most  deplorable  ignorance  of  God,  his  word,  and  his 
sacred  institutions. — let  the  few  friends  of  Zion,  weeping  in  se- 
cret places,  over  her  desert,  her  affecting,  and  wide-spread  des- 
ert, around  them — let  the  deeply  impressed  missionaries,  who  in 
oliedience  to  the  most  urgent  calls,  have  been  sent  by  pedobap- 
tist societies  into  different  parts  of  the  State — be  allowed  to  tcs> 
tify  I — If  there  be  religion  there,  is  it  not  almost  wholly  confinecl 


i34  tETTER   XXIII, 

vhich  God'requires  ?  Shall  baptized  persons,  wheUier 
young  or  old,  be  taught,  and  persuaded,  to  disavow  and 
contetnn  the  seal  of  God  which  is  upon  them  ?  Shall 
any  be  taught,  and  persuaded,  to  disavow  and  contemn, 
that  act  of  their  pious  parents,  by  which  with  humble- 
faith,  with  fervent  prgiyer,  with  tears  of  tenderness,  devo- 
tion, and  hope,  they  were  givep  up  to  God,  according  to 
his  sacred  institution  i  Shall  children,  thus  given  up,  be 
seductively  torn  away  from  those  churches,  which  wit* 
nessed  the  solemn  vows  made  for  them,  and  bore  a  part 
in  the  tender  and  holy  solemmties  ?  And  shall  all  this 
be  done,  Sir,  under  the  imposing  pretence  of  doing  -God 
serv'-ice,  and  maintaining  the  honour  of  his  special  insti- 
tutions ?  Alas  !  the  deceptions  v/hich  may  be  passed 
upon  mankind,  and  even  upon  christians  ! 

"  5.  They  deny  and  contemn  the  grace,  so  kindly  of- 
fered for  the  spiritual  renovation,  and  everlasting  salva- 
tion, of  the  seed  of  the  church.  " — This,  Sir,  ypu  have 
put  down  as  my  fifth  ^'.invective." 

^o  those  places,  in  which  pedobaptist  churches  are  established, 
and  a  pedobaptist  Influenc--  has  ejffect  ?  Witness  the  late  revi- 
%'als  ! 

But  if  such  be  the  result  of  the  fairest  experinient  ever  made 
•f  antipedobaplist  principles  ;  what  reason  have  we  to  suppose, 
that,  were  antipedobaptism  to  become  as  predominant  in  the  o- 
ther  States,  our  country,  at  large,  would  not  soon  exhibit  a  sim- 
ilarly dark  and  dreary  aspect  -?— in  what  light,  then,  are  the 
friends  of  Zion,  and  the  friends,  of  humanity,  to  look  upon  the  so 
loudly  proclaimed  prevalencef'pf  antipedobaptism,  in  this  age  of 
abounding  error  ? 

Let  us  not  be  deceived  in  this  matter.  Doubtless  it  is  not  to 
those  places,  where  a  pedobaptist  influence  prevails,  that  we 
are  to  look  for  the  true  character  and  tendency  of  antipedobap- 
tism :  but  to  those  places  where  anti}>edobaptist  principles  are 
left  to  their  own  uninfluenced  operation.  That  zeal  which  is 
bk'wn  into  a  flame,  by  a  predominant  opposite  influence,  may 
die  awav,  and  go  out,  when  that  opposite  influence  is  no  longer 
felt  ;  that  cngagedness  in  religio/i,  which  is  found  necessary, 
while  struggling  for  an  ascendency,  may  subside  and  disappear, 
•w^ven  the  desired  ascendency  is  attained  ;  and  even  thatsec/orz'« 
an  love,  which,  bv  motives  of  party,  is  often  raised  to  the  high- 
est ardour,  and  which  sometimes  discoveis  itself  in  demonstra- 
tions oi fondness^  to  the  sober  mind  as  disgusting,  as  they  are 
evidently  indecent,  may  give  place  to  indifference  and  coldness, 
when  those  motives  of  party  cease  to  operate. — 1  appeal  to  facts. 

In  this  reference  to  Rhode-Island,  so  obviously  in  point,  and 
necessary  to  my  purpose,  but  in  which  nothing  is  less  intended 
than  a  reflection  upon  the  State,  I  throw  myself)  frai.kly,  upoi> 
the  candor  of  all  cocccrnf  d. 


tETTER   3£XIir.  fS'S 

After  a  number  of  observations  and  questions,  which 
1  am  not  concerned  to  answer,  you  take  occasion  to  saj'', 
**  We  know  of  no  other  grace,  nor  can  we  conceive  of  a- 
nv,  which  the  author  can  have  reference  to,  but  the 
grace  of  Infant  Baptism.  We  know  nothing,  which  dis^ 
tinguishes  the  children  of  pedobaptists  from  the  children 
of  other  believers,  but  their  baptism.  " — Had  I  not,  Sir, 
throughout  mj'  Discourses,  spoken  of  the  gracious  prom- 
ise of  the  Covenant  respecting  children  ?  Is  not  the 
"grace^^  set  forth  in  this  promise  something  more  than 
baptism  ?  And  did  you  not  understand  it,  did  you  not 
** concei'oe^^  of  it,  as  lx;ing  something  moi'e  ? 

But  if  the  covenant  contains  a  gracious  promise  res- 
pecting children,  and  by  faith  in  this  promise  a  pedobap- 
tist  believer  gives  up  his  children  to  God,  and  agreeably 
to  his  holy  institution  hars  the  sacred  sign  and  seal  put 
upon  them  j  is  there  not  then  an  important  difference  be- 
tween his  children,  and  the  children  of  an  antipedobap- 
tist,.  who  utterly  denies  the  promise,  despises  the  holy 
institutron,  and  presumptuously  leaves  his  children  to 
the  "  uncovenanted  mercy  of  God.  "  * 

Yes,  Sir,  we  of  the  pedobaptist  faith,  if  true  and  faith- 
ful, indeed  may  "present  our  supplications  for  our  chil- 
dren, upon  a  different  footing  from  what  the  bap'ists  do.'*^ 
We  may  humbly  plead  their  dedication  to  God,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  institution  ;  and  his  infinitely  gracious 
promise  in  Christ,  to  be  a  God  to  us,  and  to  our  children 
after  us.  And  this.  Sir,  let  n»e  assure  you,  how  lightly 
soever  by  you  it  may  be  treated,  will  ever  be  esteemed 
by  a  true  and  faithful  pedobaptist,  as  a  privilege  unspeak- 
ably, impcr/tant  and  precious.  Dear  as  his  children  are 
naturally  to  him,  they  will  be  doubly  endeared  bv  the 
affecting  consideration,  that  God,  his  chosen  portion,  has 
condescended  to  speak  graciously  cbncerning  them  i 
has  spoken  of  his  set-vants  house,  for  a  great  x^hiie  to 
come. 

Let  me  ask  you,  then,  dear  Sir,  is  it  a  small  thing  to 
be  the  children  of  such  a  parent  ?  A  parent,  who  ivalks 
in  the  steps  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  and  can  humbly  and 
believingly   plead  for  them  God's  covena-nted  mercy    in 

*  You  speak  of  leaving  children  to  the  "  uncovenanted  mercy 
Qf  God,  "  as  it"  it  were  even  a  meritorious  thin^.    But   are  yc?: 
-willing,  Sir,  to  leave  yourself  in  this  way  ? 


13j&  LETTER  XXin. 

Christ.  Is  not  this  something  more,  thnn  to  be  the  chil-' 
<iren  of  a  parent,  who,  however  faithful  in  other  respects, 
yet  denies  and  contemns  the  grace  set  forth  in  the  cove- 
nant respecting  ?Ai?m,  neglects  the  important  duty  of  giv- 
ing them  up  to  God  in  his  instituted  way,  and  thus 
cut.9ghimself  off  from  the  privilege  of  pleading  for  them 
on  covenant  ground. 

"  6.  The  great  body  of  God's  visible  professing  people, 
even  the  most  enlightened  and  the  most  faithful^  for  hun- 
dreds of  years,  they  utterly  set  aside,  as  constituting  no 
part  of  the  true  church  of  Christ,  but  only  a  part  of  Anti- 
christ."— This  according  to  vour  notation,  is  my  sixth 
*'  invective  ; "  and  with  reference  to  this  you  have  beea 
pleased  to  observe  :  "We  very  much  regret,  that  Mr. 
Worcester  should  throw  out  such  an  unqualified  charge, 
without  producing  a  scrap  of  proof  to  support  it.  Can 
we  suppose  that  he  seriously  believed  this  to  be  the  sen- 
timent of  the  baptists  generally  ? " 

Yes,  Sir,  that  the  baptists  generally,  I  mean  the  close 
communion  baptists,  do  set  aside  the  great  body  of  God's 
visible  people,  even  the  most  enlightened  and  the  most 
faithful,  as  constituting  no  part  of  the  church  of  Christ, 
but  only  a  part  of  Antichrist,  I  do  seriously  believe  ; 
and  I  should  no  more  think  of  being  called  upon  to  pro- 
duce proof  of  this,  than  of  their  holding  to  close  com- 
munion. 

But  you  proceed  :  "  The  writer  of  these  sheets  thinks 
it  incumbent  on  him  to  declare,  that  as  far  as  he  has  been 
able  to  understand  the  sentiments  of  his  own  denomina- 
tion, both  in  Europe  and  America,  they  never  have  de- 
nied that  pedobaptists  were  visible  christians  ;  that  a 
mimber  of  them,  united  together  may  be  a  visible  church  ; 
and  that  a  minister  regidartif  placed  over  them^  may  be  a 
visible  minister  of  Christ.^^  P.  297. — Probably,  Sir,  no 
declaration  in  your  whole  book  has  more  surprized  and 
astonished  your  readers,  both  pedobaptists  and  antipedo- 
baptists,  than  this. 

Is  this,  Sir,  the  common,  every  day^  laT«guage,  is  this 
consistent  with  the  pi-actice  of  vour  denomination  "gen- 
erally I  "  Is  it,  indeed,  a  fact  that  you  and  your  breth- 
ren, generally,  do  acknowledge  and  treat  pedobaptist 
churches,  as  churches  of  Christ 'i — Do  you  hold  fellow- 
ship with  them  as  such,  in  the  sacred  ordinances  of 
Christ's  house  ?     Do  you  regard  them  as  ^wcA,  in  jour 


LETTER  XXIII."  13r 

general  conduct  towards  them  ?  Do  you  i-eceive  and  re« 
cognize  their  members,  as  brethren  in  common,  and  en- 
titled to  all  the  privileges  of  the  gospel  ? — Do  you  pray 
for  the  enlargement  of  these  churches  ?  Do  you  rejoice 
in  their  prosperity  ?  Do  you  seek  their  peace  ?  Do  you 
religiously  abstain  from  every  thing,  which  would  tend 
to  hinder  their  increase,  to  disturb  their  tranquillity,  or 
to  disafft  ct,  alienate,  and  turn  aside  their  members  ? 

Do  3'ou  not,  on  the    contrary,   utterly  separate  your- 
selves from  our  sacred  communion  ?     But  can  you  do 
this,  and  yet  acknowledge  us  churches  of  Christ  ?     Do 
you  not  practically   say  to  our  members  generally,  when 
present  on  your  sacramental   occasions,  "  Stand  aside  ; 
you  have  no  part  nor  lot  with  us  in  this  matter  .'"     But 
can  you   do  this,  and' yft  acknowledge  us  churches  of 
Christ  ?     Do  you  not  hold  yourselves  at  liberty  indiscri* 
minately  to  enter  our  enclosures,  to   seize  upon  our  /a- 
^cwr^— — upon  things  made  ready  to  yoitr  hands  ;*    and  to 
act  the  bishop  even  v.ith  our  covenanted  professors  ;  with- 
out any  respect  to  the  feelings,  the  character,  or  the  pas- 
toral rights  of  their  ministers  ?      But  can  you  do  this, 
and  yet  acknowledge  us  churches  and  ministers  of  Christ  ? 
Do  you  not  hold  j-ourselves  at  libertv,  upon  everv  favo- 
rable opportunity,  to  employ  all  the  means  in  vour  pow- 
er, to  disaffect,  to  proselyte,  and  to  detach  from  us,  our 
members  ?     But  can  you  do  this,  and  vet  acknowledge 
us  churches  of  Christ  ?     When  any  of  our  members  are, 
by  any  means  prevailed  on  to  go  over  to  you  ;  do  you 
not  immediately  receive  them,    without  any  respect  to 
their  covenant  engagements,  to  their  church  standing,  or 
to  the  feelings,  or  privileges,  either  of  their  ministers  or 
their  brethren  ?     But  can  you  do  this,  and  vet  acknow- 
ledge us  churches  of  Christ  ?     Do  you  not,  in  fine,  open- 
ly aiid  before  the  world,  call  us  *'  'Judaizers''''  and  a  part 
Cii'"'- Antichrist  T''\     But  can   you  do  this,  and  yet  ac- 
knowledge us  churches  of  Christ? 

You  will  pardon  me,  Sir,  this  plainness,  which  I  use 
■with  reluctance,  but  which  you  yourself  have  compelled  ? 
You  have  called  on  me  for  proof,  which  I  can  no  other- 

*  2  Cor.x.  12—16. 

t  See  your  own  book,  p.  191,  and  several  other  places.     See 
Mr.  Merrill's  publication  at  large.    In  his  "  Letters"  "  to  aii 
'/iK',t  fear  God,"  occasioned  by  my  Discource s,  he  calls  us  Anti' 
•  Ar;.??  jTj^re  than  forty  times. 
L?t.  S 


138  lETTER  xxrrr. 

wise  give,  than  by  a  recurrence  to  facts.  I  must,  there- 
fore, be  permitted  to  proceed. 

Was  there  a  church  of  Christ  at  Sedgwick,  before  the 
late  revolution  in  that  place  ?  If  there  was  ;  how  could 
you  and  your  brethren  go  upon  the  spot,  and  raze  that 
church  to  its  foundation  ;  setf aside,  as  a  mere  nullity,  all 
its  covenant  engagements,  its  established  order,  and  its 
holy  solemnities  ;  and  from  its  ruins  erect  a  church,  and 
ordain  a  minister,  anew,  as  if  before  there  had  been  no 
church,  nor  minister,  of  Christ  in  the  place  !  Can  you. 
hold  yourselves  at  liberty  to  rend  in  pieces,  to  break  up 
and  overturn  at  pleasure,  acknowledged  churches  of 
Christ  ?  Can  you  hold  yourselves  at  liberty  to  set  aside, 
and  treat  with  utter  contempt^he  established  order,  the 
covenant  engagements,  and  the  most  sacred  solemnities, 
of  achiotvlec/ged  churches  of  Christ  ?* 

*  "  Mr. Worcester,"  you  say,  •'  seems  to  be  much  disturbed  at 
the  proceedings  of  the  Baptists  at  Sedgwick,  for  administering 
baptism,  foi'ming  a  church,"  &c.  p.  139. 

Though  I  certainly  considered  your  "exulting"  publication  of 
the  Sedgwick  revolution  as  a  piece  of  the  same  system  of 
firoselytism^  of  which  your  parade  of  nieetings  and  baptisms, 
your  unbounded  blazoning  of  your  preachers  and  perform- 
ances', your  perpetual  proclamations  of  success  and  increase, 
and  a  hundi'ed  things  of  a  similar  nature,  are  parts  ;  yet  this 
was  not,  as  you  would  represent  it,  the  thing  which  particularly 
engaged  my  attention.  But,  "  the  proceedings  at  Sedgwick," 
I  formerly  adduced,  and  have  now  adduced  again,  as  public 
proof,  that  you  and  your  brethren  do  actually  "  set  at  nought'* 
our  ministers,  our  churches,  and  our  most  sacred  solemnities. 
And  in  this  light,  Sir,  however  disagreeable  it  may  be,  tl>ey 
must  be  holden  in  view. 

But  you  are  pleased  to  ask,  "  Would  not  the  Pedobaptists 
"  exult'''  a  little,  if  a  Baptist  jninister^  his  ivife^  three  deacons f 

and  eighty  others,  should  all  come  over  to  them   at  once  ?" 

To  this,  Sir,  I  answer  with  perfect  sincerity  and  frankness,  that 
should  "  a  Baptist  nmiister,  his  ti'ije,  three  deacons,  and  cigh» 
ty  others,  all  come  over  to  us  at  once,"  under  circumstances 
similar  to  those,  which  preceded,  accompanied,  and  followed^ 
the  revolution  at  Sedgwick  ;  instead  of  considering  it  a  subject 
oi  ^^  exultation,"  I  should  certamly,  for  one,  consicler  it  a  just 
cause  for  the  deepest  humiliation.  Sedgwick  ninll  not  long  be 
to   you  a  very  pleasant  sound. 

But  you  proceed  :  "  Has  net  the  defection  of  Mr.  Edwards 
from  our  sentiments  been  a  theme  of  as  much  exultation  among 
them  ? — Not  only  so,  but  has  not  an  instance  of  one,  who  by  the 
<'  overwhelming  attentions  of  the  Baptists,"  had  like  to  have 
been  one,  but  mercifully  escaped,  been  widely  proclaimed  a^ 
broad!  Fid.  the  lucubrations  of  a  vzttico  at  thiest,  OVER 


lETTER  XXIII.  139 

Upon  this  head,  as  upon  every  other,  I  only  wish  Aat 
the  real  truth  may  appear.  If  I  have  been  deceived, 
and  if  the  public  have  been  deceived,  with  respect  to 
your  sentiment  and  practice,  in  this  particular  ;  happy 
indeed  sliould  I  be  to  have  the  deception  done  away. 
But  will  you  suffer  me,  Sir,  to  bring  the  matter  to  a 
point  ? 

Either  there  was  an  acknowledged  church  of  Christ  at 
Sedgwick,  or  there  was  not.  If  there  was ;  I  ask,  then, 
again,  with  the  utmost  seriousness,  how  could  you  and 
your  brethren  go  down,  and,  in  the  open  face  of  the  world, 
demolish  that  church,  and  treat  all  its  sacred  things,  as 
unholy  and  profane  ?  But  if  you  acknowledged  no 
church  of  Christ  at  Sedgwick ;  why  then  attempt  to  im- 
press the  public  mind  with  a  belief,  that  you  do  acknow- 
ledge our  churches  I 

Again,  either  you  do  acknowledge  us  to  be  churches 
of  Christ,  or  you  dp  not.  If  you  do  thus  acknowledge 
us  ;  how  then  can  you  separate  yourselves  from  our  com- 
munion ;  take  away  our  members,  without  regarding  at 
all  their  sacred  relation  to  us ;  and  treat  all  our  cove- 
nant engagements  and  solemnities,  as  things  which  may 
at  pleasure  be  trampled  in  the  dust  ?  But  if  you  do  not 
acknowledge  us  churches  of  Christ ;  then  suffer  me 
ag.\in  to  ask,  why  would  you  hold  out  a  shew  as  if  you 
did  thus  acknowledge  us  ? 

the  signature  of  Lydia,  in  the  Mass.  Miss.  Mag.  /  .'" Yes, 

Sir  ;  these  are  your  own  words  ;  for  I  find  them  in  the  three 
hundred  and  thirty-ninth  page  of  your  book  ;  and  without  any 
comment,  I  return  them  to  you  for  your  sober  reflection.  I  as- 
sure you,  however,  that  from  the  pointless  shafts  of  vulgar  ridi- 
cule, by  whomsoever  wielded,  the  serious  writer  of  the"  serious" 
piece,  in  the  Mass,  Miss.  Magazine,  under  the  signature  of  Ly- 
j)iA,  has  but  little  to  fear. 

In  the  different  parts  of  your  book,  instances  of  a  similar  fiu- 
ritii  and  dignity  of  style  are  conspicuous ;  sei^eral  of  which  I 
once  had  it  in  mind  to  collect  and  present  together,  in  one  lumi- 
nous viev/.  But  really,  Sir,  it  is  not  without  extreme  pain,  that 
I  have  given  from  a  Christian  writer^  and  one  whom  I  have 
been  accustomed  so  much  to  respect,  the  single  specimen  now  ex- 
Jiibited.  I  will  just,  however,  observe,  that  you  have  one  pas- 
sage, (p.  320.)  which,  though  evidently  penned  with  great  com- 
placency, no  consideration  whatever  should  prevail  on  me  to 
transcribe  ;  as  I  would  admit  nothing  upon  my  page,  which 
jnight  not  be  read,  in  any  circle,  v/ithout  crimsoning  the  Jhxr 
■Tf  modesty. 


140  LETTER   XXm. 

But  is  it  possible,  that  after  all.  you  should  have  in  this 
case,  a  reservation  P  Could  you  mean  that  you  acknow- 
ledge us  indeed  to  be  churches' — but  not  churches  of 
Christ  ?  Language  of  this  sort,  from  antipedobaptists, 
I  have  long  indeed  been  accustomed  to  hear.  Even 
Mr.  Merrill  calls  us  churches — church rs  of  Anti- 
christ.-— But  surely,  Sir,  you  could  not,  intentionallv, 
thus  trifle  with  the  public,  in  a  case  of  this  serious  na- 
ture. You  could  not,  from  any  motives  of  popularity, 
or  party  interest,  intend  to  disguise  the  truth,  by  ambi- 
guously  acknowledging  us  to  be  cAz/rcA^5,  but  not  chirch- 
^5  ^/Christ.  This  subject,  however,  I  now  leave  to 
your  own  reflections,  and  to  the  judgment  of  a  candid 
pubUc, 

"  7.  The  author  of  the  Discourses,"  vou  say,  "  has 
charged  the  ayiabaptists^  with  placing  such  stress  upon 
baptism,  in  their  mode^  as  to  make  it  the  subject  on  which 
to  display  their  greatest  zeal  ;  thus  making  people  be- 
lieve, in  too  many  instances,  that  going  into  the  water 
vill  answer  all  the  pui-poses  of  their  present  comfort,  anci 
their  eternal  salvation." 

It  is  here  to  be  observed,  I  did  not  say  nor  imply,  that 
you  intended  to  make  people  thus  believe  ;  but  that  your 
zeal,  on  this  point,  whether  intentionally,  or  not,  really 
had  this  eflfect. 

But  upon  this  you  warmly  ask,  "  Can  Mr.  Worcester 
lay  his  hand  on  his  heart  and  solemnly  declare,  that  he 
believes  the  above  charge  to  be  true  r"  Yes,  Sir,  I  can  ; 
and  declare  it  too,  as  '  solemnly,'  as  if  at  the  bar  of  our 
common  Judge.  And  as  I  am  by  no  means  singular  in 
this  belief — a  belief  very  generally  impressed  ;  so  neither 
have  I  taken  it  up  lightly,  or  without  serious  regard  to 
*  evidence.' 

Upon  this  subject,  Sir,  a  subject  of  high  solemnitv,  I 
%vould  not  for  my  life  let  a  single  word  escape  from  my 
pen,  but  under  the  fullest  conviction  of  its  truth.  Nay,' 
it  is  not  without  deep  concern  that  I  make  the  statements, 
which,  in  truth  and  diity^  I  am  called  upon  to  make. 

But  is  it  possible,  Sir,  thnt  you  shoulei  be  unapprized 
of  what  is  eo  generally  known  ?nd  deplored,  that  reli- 
giotts  revivals  of  the  most  hopeful  appearances  have  very 
often  been  checked-  and  made  to  subside,  bv  antiprdo- 

*  Tiiis  i  btiii  cor.iiider  the  proper  name. 


IKTTER  XXIII.  141 

baptists  coming  in,  and  zealously  pressin]^  the  subject  of 
baptism  in  your  mode  ?  So  numerous,  indeed,  and  so 
notorious,  are  instances  of  this  sort,  that  whenever,  ia 
times  of  revival,  antipedobaptists  come  into  our  societies  j 
it  is  almost  invariably  considered,  by  the  most  serious 
and  judicious,  both  ministers  and  people,  as  a  sad  indica» 
tion,  or  presage,  that  the  gracious  work  will  not  much 
longer  continue  ;  and  that  the  great  essentials  of  religion 
will  soon  be  lost  out  of  sight,  in  the  zeal^  not  according 
to  knoxuledge^  for  modes  vci\d  forms.  For  the  correctness 
of  this  statement,  I  confidently  appeal  to  the  best  inform* 
ed  ministers  and  christian  people,  throughout  our  coun*- 
try  at  large. 

Many,  Sir,  within  my  knowledge,  have  been  the  in- 
stances of  persons,  under  serious  awakenings,  whose  at- 
tention  has  been  turned,  by  the  preaching  or  conversation, 
of  antipedobaptists,  from  subjects,  the  most  intimately 
connected  with  their  eternal  salvation'  to  the  subject  of 
goijig  into  the  ivater^  as  if  this  were  of  the  first  and  high- 
est concernment.  Many  the  instances  of  persons  in 
these  solemn  circumstances,  to  whom  representations 
have  been  made,  as  if,  by  going  into  the  wafer,  they 
Mould  immediately  find  peace.  And  bv  representations 
of  this  sort,  not  a  few,  as  there  is  the  utmost  reason' to 
fear,  have  been  induced  to  make  the  pattering  experi- 
ment ;  and  having  gone  into  the  water  in  a  vain  confi- 
dence, have  afterwuids  sit  down  in  a  delusive  peace,  as 
if  all  were  well.  Aias  !  Sir,  is  it  not  a  solemn  thing  for 
people  to  be  misled  to  their  eternal  destruction  !  God 
grant  they  may  see  their  error,  before  it  be  too  late. 

Here,  however,  that  I  may  not  be  misunderstood,  nor 
make  on  any  mind  an  undue  impression,  I  feel  it  incum- 
bent on  me  to  declare,  and  I  make  the  declaration  with 
great  satisfaction,  that  \vKi\t  I  believe  the  affecting  in- 
stances now -described,  to  be  many  ;  I  also  as  fully  be- 
lieve that  many,  wha  go  into  the  zvater^  are  graciously 
renewed  disciples  of  Christ  j  and  that  they  go  into  the 
water  with  an  honest  view  to  answer  a  good^  though  not 
zvel!  ififornted^  conscience. 

'■'•  8.  The  next  thing  which  we  shall  notice,"  you  say, 
*'  is  a  charge  against  us  of  delusion  and  superstition,  on 
the  account  of  our  pretending  to  follow  Christ  into  the 
water." 

Christ's  baptism,  as  you  yourself  acknowledge,  was  un^ 


doubtedly  of  an  import  altogether  different  from  that, 
which  he  afterwards  instituted  for  his  followers.  Np 
reason,  therefore,  appears,  why  his  baptism  should  be 
considered,  as  an  example  for  us,  any  more  than  any 
Other  thing,  which,  as  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  it  beho- 
ved him  to  do,  or  to  suffer.  And  should  any  zealous 
persons  be  imprt^ssed  with  the  idea,  that  they  must  b^ 
circumcised,  or  fast  forty  days  in  the  wilderness,  or  ride 
on  an  ass  to  Jerusalem,  or  even  die  upon  across,  in  order 
to  follow  Christ ;  and  this  should  be  represented  to  them 
as  delusion^  or  siiperi,t7tkn ;  why  might  they  not  call 
such  a  representation  an  '  invective,^  and  adopting  your 
words,  ardently  reply,  ""It  seems  then^  Christ  did  not  in" 
tend  that  his  foV.oxvers  should  follow  him  I  Na^,  why 
might  they  not  go  through  and  with  all  your  pathos,  add, 
"  There  are  some  who  seem  to  exult,  that  they  are  not 
so  deluded  as  to  follow  him  in  these  pa»*ticulars.  Wc 
envy  them  not  their  happiness  ;  but  we  freely  confess 
•we  aspire  after  the  felicity  of  those,  of  whom  it  will  one 
day  be  said,  "  These  are  they^  -which  folloxv  the  Lamb,, 
-whithersover  he  goeth  !" 

Doubtless,  Sir,  they  might  talk  as  movingly  as  you  dOj 
about  "  taking  up  the  cross  ;"  they  might  use  w<wds  and 
phrases,  calculated  to  strike  the  passions  as  forcibly  as 
5'our  '-' watry  grave  ^^  and  they  might  with  as  much 
humility  as  you  do,  claim  a  superiosity  over  other  chris- 
tians, on  account  of  their  great  self-denial.  But  of  wh^ 
avail,  with  a  well  informed  Christian,  would  all  this  be  t^ 
their  pui-pose  ?  The}-  m.ight,  indeed,  be  thought  sincere^ 
and  they  might  be  pitied ;  but  would  they  not  still  be 
viewed  as  under  the  influence  of  delusion^  or  supersti- 
tion ? 

It  is  our  dutv  to  observe  baptism,  not  in  imitation  of 
Christ's  example^  but  in  obedience  to  his  institution.  But 
even  if  Christ's  baptism  were  an  example  for  us,  it  would 
by  no  means  follow  that  we  must  be  immersed ;  for 
there  is  strong  reason  to  believe,  that  Christ  was  not 
baptized  by  immersion."!" 

Have  you  any  evidence,  Sir,  that  pedobaptists  are  not 
as  humble,  as  self  denying,  as  conscientiously  obedient 

*  Was  Jtrdan  ChHsCs  grave?  If  not  ;  is  it  not  a  mark  of 
delusion  to  talk  of  following  Christ  iiito  his  ni'atry  grave  ? 

t  See  "The  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,"  Mass. 
Miss.  Magazine,  Vol.  iv.No.  5. 


LETTER   XXIII,  143 

to  the  gospel,  as  ready  to  take  up  the  cross  and  follow 
Christ,  as  you  and  your  brethren  are  ?  If  you  have  not ; 
is  it,  then,  a  small  thing  that  you  arrogate  to  yourselves 
the  exclusive  honour  of  being  the  Jhl/owers  of  the  Lamb  f 
Let  us  remember.  Sir,  that  should  xue  even  give  our  bodies 
to  be  burned^  and  yet  have  not  charity^  it  would  profit  us 
nothing.  But  charity  vaunteth  not  itself;  is  not 
juffeD  tip  ;  doth  not  behave  itself  unseemly;  seek^th 
not  HER  ovyN  ;  is  not  easily  provoked  ;  and  thinketk 

NO    EVIL.       iVbf  /ze  ?Aaf  eOMMENDETH     HIMSELF    shall  be 

approved;  but  xvhom  the  Lord  gommendeth. 

On  the  •whole.  Sir,  it  appears,  that  what,  for  certain 
purpo  ses,  you  were  pleased  to  call  my  "■  invectives  a- 
gainst  the  Baptists,"  were  only  fair  and  serious,  and  im- 
portant, representations  of  truth  and  of  fact. 

It  is  not  an  uncommon  thing,  for  people,  when  pressed 
with  argument,  or  with  a  clear  exposure  of  their  errors, 
to  cry  out — -"Persecution.^^  This  they  find  a  very-  con- 
venient way  to  parry  the  force  of  argument,  and  to  awa- 
ken in  their  favour  a  popular  sympathy.  This,  Sir,  give 
me  leave  to  say,  you  appear  very^  perfectly  to  under- 
stand. 

But  again,  I  must  be  suffered  to  ask,  is  it  a  light  thing 
for  you  and  your  brethren,  at  once  to  claim  for  your- 
selves the  distinguished  glory  of  being  persecuted  for 
righteousness  sake ;  and  to  charge  upon  those,  who  feel 
it  their  duty  to  defend  the  church,  the  covenant,  and  or- 
dinances cff  God,  against  your  assaults,  with  the  odious 
and  heinous  crime  of  persecution  ?  While  our  churches 
are  openly  denounced,  as  being  no  churches  of  Christ ; 
while  our  covenant  solemnities  are  publicly  treated  as 
invalid  and  profane  ;  while  our  children  are  taught  to 
despise  the  seal  of  God  which  is  upon  them  ;  while  we 
are  stigmatized,  in  direct  terms,  as  "  fuaaizers^''  and  a- 
betters  of  ''  Antichrist  ;"*  and  while  bleaches  are  attempt- 
ed to  be  made  upon  us,  at  every  point,  and  every  breach 
actually  made  is  triumphantly  proclaimed,  as  a  sure  pre- 
sage of  our  utter  demolition ; — are  we  to  sit  perfectly 
still,  and  can  we  not  move,  or  open  our  mouths,  in  the 
way  of  defence,  without  incurring  the  charge  and  the 
odium  of  a  persecuting  spirit  ? 

It  is  a  fact  as  notorious,  as  it  is  deserving  of  attention, 
that  in  this  unhappy  contest,  you  are  invariably  the  as- 
sailants.    You  are  engaged,  as  far  as  in  your  power,  to 


144  LETTER  XXIV. 

break  up  and  overthrow  our  churrhes,  and  our  religious^ 
order;  an  d*our  ]:nn  is  strictly  (he  part  cf  cfeff  nee.  This 
Sir,  I  consider  an  undeniable  fact.  But  though  vou 
avowedly,  and  upon  system,  make  inroads  upon  us 
-ivherever  \-on  can,  and  openly  triumph  in  the  spoils  of 
churches  ;  yet  no  sooner  do  we  attempt  ^nv  defence  of 
Ourselves,  and  of  what  we  believe  to  be  the  cause  of 
truth  and  of  God,  than  you  immediatelv  resort  to  the 
cry  oi  *''-  persecution"  as  if  we  were  the  offending  party. 
Is  there  not  something  in  all  this.  Sir,  which  clearly  evin- 
ces, that  all  on  your  part  is  not  right  ? 

Truth,  pure  and  conscious  truth,  will  never  retreat 
from  the  field  of  fair  argument,  and  clamorously  seek. 
shelter  in  popular  sympathy.  Gharltv,  that  heavenly 
charity^  which  seeketh  not  her  own,  will  never  claim  fof 
herself  the  privilege  of  acting  offensively,  or  even  defen- 
sively, without  allowing,  at  the  same  time,  both  her  prin- 
ciples, and  her  conduct,  to  be  fairly  and  fully  examined. 
Nothingcanmorestrongly,  andunequivocaly,markaweak 
and  a  bad  cause,  than  a  readiness  either  angrily  to  clam- 
our, ignobly  to  complain,  or  unchristianly  to  jeer,  when 
fairly  and  religiously  opposed. 

Respectfully  yours,  &c. 


LETTER  XXIV. 

REr.  b-  DEAR  SIR, 

IN  my  Discourses,  I  had  occasion  to  state,  that  *the 
anabaptists,  or  antipedobaptists,  are  a  sect  of  modern 
date  ;*  that  *they  had  theirori^^in  sometime  after  the  re- 
formation under  Luther  and  Calvin  ;'  and  that  'from  that 
period  to  the  present,  though  they  have  considerably  en- 
creased,  and  some  of  them  improved,  vet  they  have  ever 
been  but  a  very  small propsrtion  of  the  Christian  world 
' — but  a  very  small  proportion  of  the  true  and  faithful 
professing  people  of  God.'  This  statement  I  still  be- 
lieve to  be,  in  every  part  of  it,  most  strictly  correct ; 
and  of  sufficient  importance  t©  claim  your  very  serious 
consideration. 


LETTER    XXIV»  145 

Unpleasant  as  the  fact  is,  it  ou^ht  not  to  be  dissembled, 
jihat  tlie  history  of  your  denomination  is  easilv  traced 
back  to  the  German  anabaptists  ;  who  first  made  their 
appearance  at  Munster  about  the  vear  1522,  and  who  by 
their  wild  irregularities,  gave  so  much  trouble  to  Luthet* 
and  his  worthy  associates  :  but  farther  back  than  this  it 
cannot  be  traced.  As  forthe  Petrobrusiansof  the  twelfth 
centurv,  it  is  still  very  doubtful  whether  thev  were  anti- 
pedobaptists  ;  and  if  they  were,  they  continued  but  for  a 
short  time,  and  then  entirelv  disappeared.  Between 
them  and  the  rise  of  vour  denomination  in  Germany, 
more  than  300  years  elapsed,  and  there  are  no  links,  by 
which  to  connect  your  history  with  theirs.  From  the 
eleventh  centurv  back  to  the  fourth,  Dr.  Gill  himself  ac- 
knov.'Iedges  he  was  "  not  able  to  find  07ie  instance  of  an 
opposer  of  Infant  Baptism. "'^  And  from  the  testimonies 
adduced  in  mv  former  publication,  and  in  mv  twenty- 
first  Letter,  it  is  clear,  that  during  the  first  four  centu- 
ries. Infant  Baptism  was  uni\ersallv  received  in  the 
church  ;  excepting  that  Turtullian  and  Gregorv  were  of 
opinion,  that  in  ordinary  cases,  it  would  be  Leiter,  if 
baptism  were  deferred. 

So  clear  it  is,  that  the  antipedobaptists  are  really  a  sect 
of  modern  date.  Nor  is  it  less  clear  that,  since  their 
rise,  though  in  some  countries  *  thev  have  considerably 
encreased  ;  yet  they  have  ever  been  butaverv  small  pro^ 
portion  of  the  triie  and  faithful  professing  people  of  God.* 
This,  indeed,  is  so  clear  as  not  to  be  disputed. 

But  what,  my  dear  Sir,  is  the  plain  inference  from 
these  facts  ?  Is  it  not,  that  the  pretensions  of  your  de= 
nomination,  as  if  you  v/ere  exclusively  the  church  of  God, 
are  as  evidently  absurd,  as  thev  are  singularly  arrogant; 
and  that  in  denying,  and  separating  yourselves  from, 
pedobaptists  at  large,  you  deny,  and  separate  yourselves 
from,  the  great  body  of  God's  church  and  people  of  all 
ages  ?  • 

According  to  your  pretensions,  it  is  only  for  aboui 
.'hree  hundred  years,  tiiat  the  church  of  God  has  existed 
in  the  v/orld  :  for  it  had  no  existence  under  the  ancient 
dispensation,  nor  even  under  the  present,  until  your  de- 

*  Had  Mr.  Merrill  turned  to  the  26th  page  of  Dr.  Gill's  Ad- 
•-i'.ver  to  Mr.  Clark,  he  ml^ht  have  spured  himself  the  trouble, 
of  denyir-g  that  Dr.  Gill  had  ever  made  this  conGes:-ion;  ;"  '  '  * 
rhar.<^in<L- ir.r^  v.'ith  falsehood  in  the  ca.-. . 


146  LETTER    XXIV. 

nommation  arose.  And  ^during  these  three  hundred 
years  of  its  existence,  it  h^s  been,  upon  your  principles, 
so  limited,  as  t0  embrace  but  a  very  small  proportion  of 
the  faithful  o{  t\\e  nations  ! 

I  ask  you,  then,  sir,  if  your  pretensions  are  well  found- 
ed ;  what  valuable  purpose  has  the  church  of  God  an» 
swered  ?  From  the  sacred  oracles,  indeed,  we  have 
understood,  that  the  church  was  designed  to  be  the  pil- 
lar and  ground  of  the  truth  ;  that  by  th€  church,  princi- 
pally, truth  and  religion  were  to  be  maintained  in  the 
world.  But  if  your  antipedopaptist  pretensions  are  to 
be  admitted  ;  how  will  it  appear  that,  by  the  church,  any 
such  design  has  been  answered  ?  Will  it  not,  on  the 
contrary  appear,  that  during  four  thousand  years  before 
Christ,  and  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years  after  him, 
truth  and  religion  were  maintained  in  the  world,  not  in 
any  part  by  the  church  of  God,  bist  wholly  by  those  who 
had  no  connexion  with  it  ! 

The  facts  now  alluded  to,  the  lateness  of  your  origin, 
and  the  smallness  of  your  numbers,  compared  with  the 
great  body  of  God's  people,  has  been  urged,  and  justly 
I  think  urged,*  as  an  argument  against  your  peculiar 
sentiments.     But  this  argument  you  refuse  to  admit. 

Yes,  Sir,  even  3'ou  yourself,  instead  of  admitting  these 
facts  as  any  evidence  against  you,  have  even  made  use  of 
them  as  an  argument  in  support  of  your  claims.  "  It 
has  often"  you  sa)',  "  been  urged  as  an  argument  in  fa- 
vor of  the  Christian  religion,  that  it  made  its  way  at  first, 
against  the  learnings  poxvtr ^  und  po/ici/  of  the  zuor/d^  by 
the  instrumentality  of  a  few  illiterate  f.shermen.  Does 
not  this  argument  cast  its  full  weight  into  the  scale  infw 
vor  of  our  distingmshiyig  sentiments^  if  the  observations 
cf  our  brethren  respecting  us  be  just  l"^| — So,  then,  the 
whole  body  of  christian  professors,  opposed  to  your  "  dis' 
tingi/ishing  senti77ients^^''  are  to  be  accounted  as  the 
'■'■  ruorld ;^^  and  because  your  sentiments  have  "made 
their  way  zgnmsttheiv  learnings  pozuery  andpolici/,  there 
is  the  same  evidence  of  their  truth,  as  of  the  truth  of 
the  "  Christian  religion  ?" — This  is  the  purport  of  your 
argument.  And  in  perfect  correspondence,  with  this, 
addressing  yourself  to  us  of  the  pedobaptist  faith,  in   the 

*  Particularly,  by  my  friend  and  brother  Anderson,  in  a  very 
candid  publication,  which  has  been  treated  with  great  abuse, 
t  Appendix,  p.  330. 


LETTER   XXIV.  14/ 

dose  of  you^  book,  you  are  pleased  very  pathetically  to 
observe  :  "  When  you  cast  your  eyes  upon  the  baptist 
churches,  you  behold  a  people  spread  abroad^  who  have 
risen  from  a  handful  to  n  great  multitude.  Like  the  pri- 
mitive church,  theij  have  had  iO  encounter  all  the  prejudi- 
ces of  the  learned  and  of  the  ignorant  c^"*  that  is,  "  all  the 
*-^  prejudices''''  of  the  great  body  of  pedobaptist  professors, 
who  are  all  to  be  accounted  as  the  "  xvorld  /" 

Yes,  Sir,  you  have  here  told  us,  in  language  sufficient- 
ly explicit,  that  you  of  the  antipedobaptist  faith' are  the 
people^  exclusively  the  people  and  church  of  God  \  that  all 
ivho  have  been  opposed  to  your  sentiments  are  to  be  ac- 
counted as  being  of  the  world  \  and  that  the  comparative 
smallness  of  your  numbers,  together  with  the  opposition 
inade  to  your  sentiments,  is  to  be  considered  as  a  clear 
and  decisive  evidence  in  your  favor.  And  xve  are  called 
upon,  in  a  very  formal  manner,  to  "  behold  how  you 
have  risen,  (recently  risen)  from  a  handful  to  a  great 
raultitude ;"  and  therefore  to  beware,  how  we  dispute  • 
your  claims.  And  to  give  to  this  matter  its  highest  fin- 
ishing, in  your  closing  address  to  your  "  baptist  brethren,^' 
you  tell  them  expressly,  and  with  great  apparent  com- 
placency, that  they  are  the  people,  to  whom  "  it  is  given^ 
in  the  behalf  of  Christ,  not  only  to  believe  on  him^  but  also 
to  suffer  for  his  sake  .'"  This,  unquestionably,  is  the  dis- 
tinctive and  exclusive  characteristic  of  the  true  people 
and  church  of  God  ;  and  in  perfect  conformity  with  this 
is  the  whole  of  your  closing  Address. 

In  perfect  agreement  with  this  also  is  the  language, 
thro'out,  of  Mr.  Merrill's  reply  to  my  Discourses  ;  which, 
if  my  information  be  correct,  was  published  under  your 
eye,  and  with  your  approbation.  Mr.  Mi  affirms  expli- 
citW,  that  "  Viot  so  much  as  any  single  branch  tf  the 
Church  of  Christ ^  in  any  place  or  age  of  the  world,  hath 
ever  adhered  to  Infant  Baptism  ;^'  that  '*  Infant  Baptism 
is  peculiar  to  Ahtichrisfs  kingdom  ;  that  "  Mr.  Worces- 
ter and  his  brethren  can  trace  their  descent  from  the 
{japists^  and  their  peculiarities.  Infant  Baptism,  Sec.  from 
the  77ian  of  sin,  and  no  farther  p''  that  "the  public  ought  tc» 
be  apprized,  that  Mr.  Worcester,  from  beginning  to  end 
of  his  Sermons,  has  been  pleading  the  cause^  and  for  the 
church  and  ordinance  rf  Antichrist  ^  that  "he  is  within 
the  limits  oi  Antichrist* s  churchy  and  is  laboring  hard  to 
defend  her  principles  and  practices  ;"  and  that  "  antrin- 


148  LETTER   XXIV. 

dohaptists   have  always  denied,  that  the  pedobap- 
TisT  CHURCH  IS  THE  true  GOSPEL   CHURCF,    and  have 

EVER  CONSIDERED  PEDOBAPTISM    AS  A     BADGE  OF    AN- 
TICHRIST, IF  NOT  HER   ESSENTIAL  CHARACTERISTIC   !" 

Now,  sir,  is  it  not  time  that  these  hij^h  pretensions 
were  brought  to  the  test  ?  Is  it,  then,  true  that  vour 
denomination  is  exclusively  the  chufrh  of  God,  and  that 
the  whole  body  of  pedobaptist  professors  have  been,  and 
still  are,  of  the  "  wcr/t/,"  and  of  "  the  kingdom  of  Anti- 
christ ?"  This  is  the  grand  question  now  at  issue  be= 
tween  us. 

.  What  then  are  the  grounds,  on  which  your  preten= 
sions  rest  ?  Where  are  the  evidences,  where  the  conclu= 
sive  proofs,  that  your  denomination,  which  had  its  rise 
only  about  300  years  ago,  and  has  always  been  compar- 
atively small,  has,  nevertheless,  throughout  all  gen-? 
erations,  been  the  pillar  and  gfound  of  the  truth  ? 
Where  are  the  e^ndenccs,  where  the  conclusive  proofs, 
that,  principally,  by  your  denomination,  the  cause  of  truth 
and  religion  has  been  maintained  and  promoted  in  the 
world  ?  . 

Where,  Sir,  was  your  denomination,  where  yoifr  antl- 
pedobaptist  church,  during  the  four  thousand  years, 
which  preceded  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  ?  By  your 
own  confession  it  was  not  in  existence. — Where  was 
your  antipedobaptist  church,  in  the  primiuve  ages  after 
Christ,  when  no  one  was  ever  known,  or  heard  of,  who 
denied  Infant  Baptism  ?  By  the  testimony  of  the  fa- 
thers, it  is  plain,  it  was  not  in  existence,  Where  was 
your  antipedobaptist  church,  from  the  fourth  to  the  elev- 
enth century,  when  according  to  the  confession  of  your 
own  Dr.  Gill,  "  not  a  single  instance  was  to  be  found  of 
an  opposer  of  Infant  Baptism  ?"  Evidently,  it  was  not  in 
existence. — Where  was  vour  antipedobaptist  church  in 
the  days  of  the  reformation,  when  Luther  and  JMclanc- 
thon,  Calvin  and  Zuingiius,  with  their  faithiul  and  in- 
trepid coadjutors,  beat  dov.^n  the  bulwarks  of  Antichrist, 
and  carried  terror  and  dismay  to  the  very  seat  of  the 
Beast  ?  Alas  !  it  began  to  make  its  appearance  a  few 
years  after  the  reformation  commenced,  and  immediate- 
iy  arraved  itself  in  the  most  troublesome  opposition  to 
the  great  body  of  the  reformers. — Where  was  }  our 
antipedobaptist  church,  in  the  times  of  the  bloody  perse- 
cutions, succeeding  the  reformation,  when   millions  of 


LETTER    XXIV.  149 

faithful  confessors,  in  different  parts  of  Europe,  laid  down 
tHeir  lives, ybr  the  word  of  God ^  and  for  the  testifhoni/  of 
yesus  Christ  ?  But  little  indeed,  was  known  of  it,  to  its 
credit  ;  but  little  did  it  share  in  the  distinguished  hon- 
ours of  the  Cross. — Where,  in  fine,  was  your  antipedo- 
baptist  church,  when  ouh  pious  and  venerable  arcestors 
abandoned  their  native  country,  and  surmounting  all  the 
difficulties  of  the  ocean,  and  of  the  wilderness,  heroical- 
ly planted  the  standard  of  the  Cross  in  this  new  world  ? 
In  that  glorious  enterprise.it  had  no  share. 

Again  look  back,  Sir,  upon  all  past  ?iges,  review  the 
\vhole  history  of  God's  "cause  in  the  world  ;  and  tell  us 
what  has  been  done  for  its  support  and  promotion,  by 
your  denomination,  to  be  compared  with  that  which  was 
done  bv  the  ancient  Jewish  church,  the  Zion  of  Jehovah, 
by  you  so  much  despised  and  reproached  ?— rOr  what,  to 
be  compared  with  that  which  in  later  ages  has  been  done, 
by  pedobapiist  pi-ofessors,  by  you  denounced,  as  belong- 
ing to  the  world  and  to  Antichrht  f 

Where,  Sir,  is  your  2inc\tnX.  cloud  of  witnesses^  ruho 
through  faith  subdued  kingdoms,  wrought  right'eo'ilmess^, 
ob4ained promises,  stopped  the  mouths  of  lions,  quenched 
the  violence  of  fire^  escaped  the  edge  of  the  swords  out  of 
xveakness  were  made  strong,  ivaxed  valioit  in  fght,  and 
turned  to  fight  the  armies  of  the  aliens  ?  Where  are 
your  martyrs  and  confessors,  who  in  the  successive  pe^- 
riods  of  trial,  stood  forward  in  the  glorious  conflict,  and 
braved  the  storms,  either  of  pagan  or  of  papal  persecu- 
tion? Where  are  vour  worthies,  your  chamjiions  of  the 
Cross,  who  in  the  successive  ages  of  the  worlds  have  been 
in  the  first  ranks  of  God's  host  ;  :ind,  valiaTit  f'^i'Mie  truth 
en  the  earthy  have  victoriously  wielded  the  arms  ofthe 
gospel  against  all  the  legions  of  the  adversary  ? — A  ffevv 
names  of  late  vou  have  had,  who  have  indeed  done  wor- 
thily ;  and  -we  honour  and  love  them,  for  the  services 
xvhich  thev  have  rendered.  But  what  are  those  few,  in 
a  comparative  estimate,  upon  the  general  scale  ? 

Really,  Sir,  I  tremble  for  you,  when  I  consider  your 
pretentions.  I  tremble,  v/hen  I  consider  that  you  exclude 
from  the  church  of  God,  the  great  body  of  his  faithful 
people,  both  of  ancient  and  modern  ages.  And  I  cannot 
but  think,  that  it  highly  behoves  )ou,  to  make  a  solemn 
pause,  and  deliberately  to  survey  the  ground,  on  '"hich 
vou  stand. 


150  LETTER    XXIV. 

At  any  rate,  I  envy  you  not  your  situation.  When  I 
«'  cast  my  eyes  upon  the  baptist  churches,  and  behold  a 
people  spread  abroad,  who  have  risen  from  a  handful  to  a 
great  multitude  ;  I  am  far,  I  can  assure  you,  from  any 
inclination  to  renounce  all  connexion  with  God's  ancient 
Zion,  and  the  great  body  of  his  covenant  people  in  mo- 
dern ages,  for  the  sake  of  going  over  to  your  narrow 
communion.  I  have  no  sort  of  belief,  that  because  you 
are  thus  spread  abroad,  and  have  thus  recently  risen,  you 
are  therefore  to  be  considered  as  exclusively  the  true 
church  of  Christ,  and  all  the  rest  as  Antichrist. 

Neither  does  your  boasted  increase  give,  me  the  leas,t 
impression  in  your  favour.  It  is  an  age  of  delusion  and 
error ;  it  is  a  day  of  trial  and  of  falling  away  :  and  the 
well  informed  friends  of  truth  have  been  taught  to  ex- 
pect, that  in  these  last  and  perilous  times,  errors  of  all 
kinds  will  prevail  and  spread  abroad;  and  that  many, 
very  many,  even  of  the  people  of  God,  will  be  in  a  greater 
or  less  degree  corrupted.  So  far  then  from  considering 
your  increase,  in  this  period  of  the  world,  as  an  evidence 
in  your  favor ;  I  really  consider  it,  as  holding  a  place 
among  the  many  evidences  against  you.  I  expett.  Sir, 
that  you  will  encYea.se,  as  I  expect  other  erroneous  de= 
nominations  to  increase  ;  until  a  brighter  day,  than  the 
present,  shall  dawn  upon  the  church  and  the  world. 

I  rejoice,  however,  in  the  confidence,  that  Christ  still 
I'eigns  upon  the  holy  hill  of  Zion,  and  that  his  cause  will 
ultimately  triumph  over  all  opposition,  both  from  his 
misled  friends,  and  his  determined  enemies.  In  the 
mean  time,  I  feel  no  disposition  to  fall  in  with  the  tide  of 
modern  imrovation, however  popular,  orhowever  strong; 
but  am  perfectly  content  to  cast  in  ni}-  lot  with  that  des- 
pised and  reproached  church,  which,  from  the  earliest 
ages,  and  under  different  dispensations,  has  been  the 
grand  pillar  of  the  truth  in  the  world  j  which  has  stood 
•all  the  shocks  of  time,  and  the  most  desperate  assaults 
from  earth  and  hell  ;  and  which  her  God  has  promised 
to  make  an  eternal  excellency,  <^  joy  of  many  generations. 
Yes,  Sir,  ii  I  may  only  have  a  part  in  the  Zion  of 
God,  which  from  the  beginning  he  was  graciously  pleas- 
ed  to  set  as  a  seal  upon  his  heart,  and  to  which  he  has 
given  assurances  of  perpetual  love  ;  which  embraced  the 
patriarchs,  and  prophets,  and  righteous  men  of  ancient 
times,  and  to  which  have  belonged  the  glorious  company 


LETTER  XXIV.  151 

df  martyrs,  and  confessors,  and  worthies  of  later  ages  ; 
I  shall  be  but  little,  very  little,  disposed  to  renounce  this 
honoured  and  blessed  fellowship,  and  go  over  to  another, 
and  a  modern^  communipn.  Nor  can  I  ever  be  made  to 
believe,  that  those  principles,  the  legitimate  result  of 
which  is,  to  break  fellowship  with  God's  ancient  church, 
and  turn  over  to  the  world^  and  to  the  kmgdotn. 
of  Antichrist^  the  great  body  of  his  faithful  peo- 
ple, are  the  true  principles  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  •  And 
as  your  antipedoboptist  principles  are  of  this  description, 
I  consider  th^m  as  bearing  a  most  conspicuous  and  une- 
quivocal mark  of  error. 

Erroneous,  however,  as  I  ceitainly  believe  your  prin-\ 
ciples  to  be,  much  as  I  deplore  their  unhappy  and  inju- 
rious results,  both  to  yourselves,  to  your  children,  and 
to  the  church  of  God  at  large,  and  deeply  as  I  feel  it  my 
dutv  to  employ  my  feeble  endeavours  in  opposition  to 
them  ;  still  most  sacredly  would  I  cherish  and  cultivate^ 
the  spirit  of  brotherly  kindness  and  charity,  towards  those 
of  your  denomination,  (and  I  trust  there  are  many)  who 
really  love  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  are  sincerely, 
though  under  a  misguiding  influence,  seeking  the  honor 
of  his  name,  and  the  advancement  of  his  cause.  Thic 
spirit,  I  have  ever  professed,  and  this  spirit,  as  my  peo- 
ple will  bear  me  witness,  I  have  ever,  both  in  public  and 
in  private,  endeavored  to  promote.  And  if,  in  any  in- 
stance, any  thing  savouring  of  a  different  spirit,  have 
escaped  from  my  pen,  or  from  my  lips  ;  happy,  indeed, 
should  I  be,  could  I  in  the  fullest  manner  recal  it,  and 
make  it  as  though  it  had  never  been. 

Some  I  know  there  are,  v/ho  seem  to  imagine,  thai 
good  people  are  not  to  be  opposed,  even  when  erroneous. 
If  thev  be  Christians,  all  with  them  is  well ;  let  them  hold 
their  errors  and  practise  upon  them,  without  any  inter- 
ruption. But  so  far  am  I  from  holding  this  to  be  cor- 
rect ;  my  full  persuasion,  on  the  contrary,  is,  that  as  the 
errors  oi good  people  are  likelv  to  have  a  more  extensi^'c- 
influence  than  the  errors  of  others  ;  so  it  is  proportiona- 
hly  important,  that  ?Adr  errors  be  detected,  and  as  far  a:> 
possible  suppressed.  Neither  do  I  consider  it  in  the 
least  incompatible  with  the  most  perfect  charity  anc 
kindneso,  candidly  and  faithfully  to' withstand  the  cvro'- 
of  erring  brethren. 


ISiJ  ■  LETTER  M::ir. 

From  several  intimations  in  your  book,  as  v/eli  as  iii 
Mr.  Merrill's,  the  uninformed  public  might  be  led  to 
conclude,  that  there  had  been  a  great  falling  awav  of  my 
people  to  your  denomination  ;  tfiat  of  those  who  remain, 
many  are  in  a  wavering  and  unsettled  state  ;  and  that 
this  is  the  reason  of  mv  employing  the  endeavours,  which 
1  have  thought  it  my  duty  to  employ,  to  stav  the  tide  of 
antipedobaptism.  But  intiniations  of  this  sort,  I  can  as- 
sure you,  Sir,  might  verv  v;ell  have  been  spared.  In 
mv  endeavours,  in  this  instance,  I  have  certainly  had 
reference  particularly  to  my  own  people.  A's  a  pastor,  car- 
ing for  his  flock,  it  has  been  my  earnest  wish  to  fortify 
the  minds  of  my  people  against  prevailing  error,  and  tq 
establish  them,  as  firmly  as  possible,  in  the  covenant  and 
truth  gf  God.  And  I  have  the  satisfaction  to  believe, 
that,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  my  endeavours  have  not 
proved  altogether  unsuccessful. 

But  with  pleasure,  Sir,  lean  assure  you,  and  with 
reference  to  the'  intimations  new  in  viev/,  I  feel  it  my  du- 
ty to  assure  you,  that  anqiidst  all  the  changes  of  these  chan- 
ging times,  both  the  church  and  society  at  large,  with 
which  I  have  the  happiness  to  be  connected,  have  evin- 
ced an  exemplary  stability,  with  which  I  have  the  utmost 
reason  to  be  satisfied. 

I  have  now,  Sir,  gone  through  with  the  design,  and  e- 
ven  exceeded  the  original  design,  with  v/hich  these  Let- 
ters were  commenced.  With  what  success  it  has  been 
executed,  a  candid  public  will  determine.  These  Let- 
ters, indeed,  in  considerable  part,  I  huve  written,  as  t 
now  bring  them  to  a  close,  in  a  very  impaired  and  pre- 
carious state  oi  health  ;  and  consequently  under  many 
dicad./antages,  and  with-  great  interruptions.  Faulty, 
however,  as  in  other  respects  they  mav  appear,  they  will 
not,  I  trust,  be  pronounced  uncandid. 

Bat  whatever  the  judgiu^rnt  of  the  public  may  be,  I 
can  assure  vou.  Sir,  that  amidst  all  tlie  solicitudes  and 
depressions  of  my  present  situation,  it  aifords  me  mat- 
ter of  great  thankfulness,  and  no  small  consolation,  that 
I  have  been  enabled  to  finisli,  tiiough  in  a  very  imperfect 
manner,  this  decided  testiir.onv-in  favour  of  the  everlast- 
ing covenant,  and  the  chosen  Zion  of  God.  And  ihir; 
"consolation  I  should  have,  did  I  even  know  this  to  ^'^ 
the  liV  <■  '  ^b""'-.!-  '■■!'  ;-ny  liff'. 


LETTER    XXIV.  155 

With  fervent  prayers  for  the  prosperity  of  Zion,  and 
for  the  union  of  all  the  people  of  God,  in  the  truth  and 
fellowship  of  Christ,  and  with  sentiments  of  undissem- 
bled  affection  and  respect,  I  subscribe  myself, 

Yours,  dear  Sir, 

in  the  hope  of  the  Gospel, 

SAMUEL  WORCESTER. 


.et.   r 


m-- 


C     154     > 


POSTSCRIPT. 


AT  the  end  of  Mr.  Merriirs  Lettei*s,  occasioned  fey 
xny  Discourses,  a  note  is  given,  purporting,  that  "  a  re- 
markable coincidence  would  he  observed,  between  the 
arguments  contained"  in  those  Letters,  and  yours  con- 
tained in  your  book.  This  I  deem  correct ;  and  therefore 
consider  an  answer  to  vour  arguments,  as  being  also,  ia 
general,  an  answer  to  his.  A  few  things,  however,  of  an 
historical  nature,  found  in  his  book,  I  have  taken  occasiony 
in  my  twentieth  Letter,  to  notice.  After  the  specimens 
exhibited  of  his  stvle  and  manner,  the  public,  I  am  per- 
suaded, will  not  think  it  incumbent  on  me,  to  bestow 
upon  him  any  further  attention. 

You  have  intim  ited,  indeed,  that  for  the  gentlemen, 
who  have  engaged  in  the  controversy  with  Mr.  Merrill^ 
*'  it  xvou!d  be  injinitely  disgraceful  to  be  beaten  by  him,** 
For  myself,  I  have  never  pretended  to  enter  the  lists  with 
Mr.  Merrill ;  but  I  must  confess  to  you.  Sir,  that,  for 
any  gentlemrm  of  christian  profession  and  character  to 
*'beat  him,"  rvit/i  the  zveapons,  xuhich  he  has  choseji  for 
the  combat,  v/onld  be,  in  my  view,  an  mdeliable  reproach 
to  the  christian  cause. 

The  matter,  referred  toby  me,  which,  notwithstanding 
the  substantial  testimonies  in  support  of  it,  he  has  thought 
proper  again  to  deny,  and  to  treat  as  a  "  slander,^''  I  have 
given  into  the  hands  of  the  gentlemen,  who  heard  the 
expression  from  his  own  mouth,  who  have  written  to 
him  on  the  subject,  and  are  prepared  for  any  further 
measures,  which  the  circumstances  of  the  case  may 
require.  With  a  man,  who  will  deny  a  fact,  directly  in 
the  face  of  txvo  or  three  witnesses^  I  cannot  contend* 


CONTENTS. 


LETTER  I.        Preliminary  survey. 

LETTER  II.     Dr.  Baldwin's  "  mathematical  demonstration*' 
considered. 

LETTER  III,      The  church  originally  founded  on  the  pro* 
mise  in  Paradise. 

LETTER  IV.      God's  covenant  transactions  with  Abraham. 

LETTER  V.        The  great  gospel  promise  included  in  the 
covenant  wiih  Abraham  and  his  seed. 

LETTER  VI.       Same  subject  continued. 

LETTER  VII.    The  one  seed,  which  is  Christ,  considered. 

LETTER  VIII,    A  cardinal  point  noted  and  fixed. 

LETTER  I^.        The  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith. 

LETTER  X.  The  comprehension  of  God's  ancient  co*^ 

venant. 

LETTER  XI.         The  perpetuity  of  the  covenant. 

LETTER  XII,        Oneness  of  the  pre-Christian  and  post- 
Christian  church. 

LETTER  XIII,  The  same  subject  continued. 

LETTER  XIV.  The  same  subject  continued. 

LETTER  XV.  Is  baptism  in  the  place  of  circumcision  ? 

LETTER  XVI.  The  affirmative  of  the  question  proved. 

LETTER  XVII.  Points  made. 

LETTER  XVIII,   Provision  of  the  covenant  respecting  chil- 
dren. 


X 


LETTER  XIX.      Same  subject  continued. 

LETTER  XX.        Testimony  of  the  Fathers  vindicated. 

LETTER  XXI.      Summary  view  of  the  evidences  of  Infant 
Baptism. 


X    LETTER  XXII.     Mode  of  Baptism. 

LETTER  XXIII.    Reply  to  Dr.  Baldwin's  vindication  of  the 
Baptists, 

y     LETTER  XXIV,    Pretensions  of  the  Baptists  considered, 
Ccnclusion. 


ERRORS, 

Page  11.  I'ne  29,  for  ever  read  eve7i, 

13.  bottom,  for  including^  read  inchukd in» 
17.  top,   ioY  thus  x&z<\  (heii. — lint;  2,   iov  a  thou- 
sand^ read  two  thoiisayid. 
93.  1.  12,  from  bottonj>  for  deemed^  read  denied. 

Some  less  material  errors  the  reader  will  notice,  and  have  the 
goodness  to  correct, 


